We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Bole Blasts Nimby Boomers with Brickbats
Comments
-
True, but there's plenty of water. All those lovely flood plains in the South East.....
The real irony is that parts of the SE (Dover round to Brighton for example) actually have very few jobs and those that there are tend to be poorly paid.
Still, never let facts get in the way of junior common room politics, eh?
More high speed rail links to the capital with juicy season ticket prices - problem solved.;)"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
They have ruled out building on green belt so the areas they build on would be away from where most people are and the infrastructure is not adequate.
you're losing me a bit.
do you just mean that you personally don't like the idea of more houses being built & are prepared to trot out any old half-plausible sounding drivel in support of this position?FACT.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »Are you theorising that people are mostly currently living in the 'right' places, that the pressure on infrastructure is presently at an acceptable level in most places, but that building more houses would cause so many people to move to the 'wrong' places that the pressure on infrastructure would get all messed up? This doesn't make any sense at all to me.
This discussion isn't only about the SE either unless regions will have different policy.
One town in the NW, rural, currently has applications in that would increase it in size by 30+%. There is nowhere near that demand and there are currently 5% properties up for sale (admittedly some will be upgrades/swaps). There is little in the way of local employment. None of them include necessary infrastructure improvements, like new roads road junctions, access, schooling, health etc. I appreciate that getting planning doesn't mean they will all be built next year but this is more like 20 years + requirement. Why should permissions be given in bulk?
Planning needs to be streamlined but that doesn't mean it will become an automatic yes. Planning requirements are there for good reasons. When they are built it is too late."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »More high speed rail links to the capital with juicy season ticket prices - problem solved.;)
You don't think rail subsidies and fares are high enough as it is?0 -
You don't think rail subsidies and fares are high enough as it is?
Need to get a return on the investment -repay some of that debt.
Network Rail debts and profits rise again
Network Rail, which maintains Britain's rail track and signalling system, has reported flat profits but higher debt over the past six months.
The company's net debt rose to £28bn, from the £27.2bn level at the end of March this year.
Operating profits were flat at £1.23bn, unchanged on last time.
Network Rail said it had expected debt levels to rise...
It said that the country's rail network was valued at £45.3bn, compared with £43.1bn last time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20440937
Just how do you value a rail network? Is it worth more just because you have spent £2.2bn on it? What must the depreciation be like?
Think of all the jobs it would bring, how quick the journeys could become, to about 2 miles from the terminal stations that is, when they all log jam."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Why not try a little imaginative thinking first before we rush to carve up the green belt, reducing our capacity to grow more food. Why keep building on flood plains, why keep building useless housing estates in the middle of nowhere so all the families that buy these properties need at least two cars because there are no shops, schools or local amenities within sensible walking distance.
Yes that does happen, I'm an ex new build sales negotiator and I've worked for plenty of developers who have done just that. The planners allow houses to be built with no real thought about the facilities needed to support hundreds of new households. They eventually build a few shops and maybe a doctor's surgery and an infant school but it often takes decades.
There are currently over 1 million properties in the UK standing idle. Why not bring them back into use. There are countless acres of brown-field sites ripe for development. All of these are in areas where the infrastructure - shops, schools, medical centres, good transport links are already in situ.
Add to that all the commercial properties, shops, offices standing empty and idle that have little or no commercial use or value. Why not change them to residential use and either convert or rebuild.
Carving up endless swathes of usable agricultural land is a very short term solution. We will need this land in the future because we need to start growing and producing more food.
Increasing oil and transport costs, competition from the increased living standards of developing countries, changing weather patterns, higher population figures all mean that food shortages are likely unless we take action.
Before we start concreting over good agricultural land for housebuilding we need to take a step back and remember the MSE mantra, reduce, re-use, recycle.
Reduce the need for expensive new housebuilding schemes by recycling and re-using old existing buildings and brownfield sites first.
It's not rocket science.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »He didnt say boomers by name for fear of provoking Boomer Armageddon, but I think when he mentioned appealing to homeowners better nature by making them think of their kids and grandkids its pretty clear who he means.
When it comes to high house prices, boomers have benefitted.
I don't have kids, therefore I don't have grandkids. I haven't benefitted from high house prices as I bought at the peak of the 1980s market. I am however in favour of more housebuilding.
When will you accept that Boomers are not an homogeneous group?Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
You could be considered to be an unlucky boomer then viv (wrt house prices).
You must have made a fair wedge during the 01-08 boom?
Unfortunately, If we look at the stereotypical boomer (ie the majority) they have benefitted from rapid house price rise and oppose new building.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »you're losing me a bit.
do you just mean that you personally don't like the idea of more houses being built & are prepared to trot out any old half-plausible sounding drivel in support of this position?
I don't think my points are half-plausible and having lived in the south east I have seen the effects of bad planning.
I'm not against more building but not without the improvements to the infrastructure effected by that building, which in my experience rarely happens. You seem to imply that the houses will be built where the people already are but I can't see the space in those areas . Perhaps you could show me somewhere on a map preferably in the area I know South West London where you could build.0 -
You could be considered to be an unlucky boomer then viv (wrt house prices).
You must have made a fair wedge during the 01-08 boom?
Unfortunately, If we look at the stereotypical boomer (ie the majority) they have benefitted from rapid house price rise and oppose new building.
Oh for goodness sake. Why the endless mindless boomer bashing. It is just intellectual laziness.
Open your eyes and your mind for once.
Boomers are not an amorphous mass, no more than 20 and 30 somethings are. Stop stereotyping eveyone - use a little intellectual rigour, put some effort into your thinking.
Stop this ridiculous blame game, it serves no purpose.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards