Bole Blasts Nimby Boomers with Brickbats

ChiefGrasscutter

Conrad wrote: »

I'm viewing 2 lots of agricultural land tomorrow with a view to holding and tyring for permission later or sub dividing and selling on using a dedicated website I would create, something along the lines of small gift parcels for the grandchild or something.

It seems agri land is all of a sudden flying off the shelves. The very worse can happen is I own a piece a land I can camp on (the one I have in mind has nice coniferous woodland too), and one day sell it on or just keep it for fun. I am checking on what the ongoing upkeep costs will be but they so far don't onerous. Other ideas could be a karting track / archery centre / camp site / climbing centre. They don't make land anymore so I forsee the demand for ones only little bit of English land increasing sharply.

Ah, the land bank scum.
We've had that round here
They buy up land/woodland etc, do no maintenance whatsoever, use it for nothing and generally let it detiorate into a mess: and woodland costs a lot to maintain/fence off, tree thin, replant etc, protect from deer, rabbits, people, fly tippers, you name it.
All in the desperate hope that just one day maybe they can get planning permission for a huge number of high density houses at maximum profit to themselves, particularly as the land is so messy now as they would describe with a smile on their face .........all which of course they would be outraged about were it in their own back yard.

Round here since the locals are not short of a bob or two we are now simply outbidding/buying up land locally when it becomes available to take it out of circulation for ever as planning potential. it is instead rented out to farmers/equestrian types.

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Of course there is an alternative to this. Every older couple or person who is knocking around in a 3 plus bedroom house while their kids and grandkids suffer a cramped rental, could agree to move into a granny flat or an annex.

This would free up a lot of houses too.

Sure they could, but why should they ?

They didn't all have the luxury of nice three bedroom houses with gardens at the age that their children are now. They accepted the concept of working their way up the ladder over their lifetime to get where they are now. Why on earth should they settle for a major retrograde step in quality of life in later life so that their children can have more than they did at the same age ? It appears that many of today's "I want it all NOW, mum !" generation cannot even appreciate the unreasonableness of their stance.

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

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.

But no where near well as someone in their 40s or late 30s who bought in the mid 1990s - at the bottom of the crash......

There is no stereotypical boomer. Just as I would imagine there is no stereotypical "entitled to", "generation me" or "echo boomer" generation - all of which are names that cover your generation.

the_flying_pig

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Sure they could, but why should they ?

They didn't all have the luxury of nice three bedroom houses with gardens at the age that their children are now. They accepted the concept of working their way up the ladder over their lifetime to get where they are now...

right.

so 30 year olds born in [say] 1952 were enjoying exactly the same standard of housing as 30 years olds born in [say] 1982 are enjoying now, there's no difference at all?

sounds like there's not a problem then.

the_flying_pig

ukcarper wrote: »

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.

so i suppose you're saying that:

1 - large-scale housebuilding couldn't really take place in the urban areas that are currently chock-full of people;

2 - instead it'll have to take place in the suburbs/out of town;

3 - urban infrastructure is currently coping with its high population [you say you live in SW London - I'm guessing you don't regularly try to board a northbound northern line train at Clapham North at 8:15AM or so];

4 - suburban infrastructure wouldn't be able to cope if population shot up.

This is a theory, I suppose, but not one that particularly resonates with me. Not when the possible, theoretical, disbenefit would come hand in hand with a benefit [more living space for people].

The_White_Horse

they need to come up with a tax efficient way of boomer parents selling their homes to their offspring - giving them money to buy a flat - perhaps no stamp duty if sold to offspring (provided it is held for a certain period ie 5 years)? I don't know. I'm sure something could be done. the offspring can still inherit the money from the parents (and the down sized property) in due course.

ash28

I am all for more house building - but where it is suitable to build them.

We moved last year fron the south east - we lived there about 25 years. Near us was (is) a country park - low lying ground and the River Loddon runs through it. The fields in the country park flooded every time the the river levels rose - but only the fields.

They built a lovely hotel (on stilts) with a big tarmac carpark - still only the fields that flooded (and the hotel car park), then they built a park and ride and adjacent to that a multiscreen cinema (on stilts) complex with huge carparks....the carparks flood and the fields and the roads all around and some of the houses......these places never, ever flooded and now they do regularly.

We now live in a rural community and have fields out back as far as the eye can see.....we also live on the edge of a flood plain and as it is on the edge of the fens we have lots of waterways and dykes - (currently full to overflowing).

If they concrete over the fields the chances are the village and surrounding areas will flood - the water that drains though the fields and runs into the waterways has to go somewhere.

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

so i suppose you're saying that:

1 - large-scale housebuilding couldn't really take place in the urban areas that are currently chock-full of people;

2 - instead it'll have to take place in the suburbs/out of town;

3 - urban infrastructure is currently coping with its high population [you say you live in SW London - I'm guessing you don't regularly try to board a northbound northern line train at Clapham North at 8:15AM or so];

4 - suburban infrastructure wouldn't be able to cope if population shot up.

This is a theory, I suppose, but not one that particularly resonates with me. Not when the possible, theoretical, disbenefit would come hand in hand with a benefit [more living space for people].

No I live much further out than that but worked in the outer London area have you tried driving up the M3, M4 or A3 in the rush hour or getting on a train in Woking.

The transport system in London is straining at the seams and I don't see where you can build without pushing it to breaking point and of course it's not just transport.

You still haven't shown me where you can build and I'm not sure building in Hampshire and Sussex would have much impact on the housing situation in London

　

　

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they need to come up with a tax efficient way of boomer parents selling their homes to their offspring - giving them money to buy a flat - perhaps no stamp duty if sold to offspring (provided it is held for a certain period ie 5 years)? I don't know. I'm sure something could be done. the offspring can still inherit the money from the parents (and the down sized property) in due course.

Perhaps the parent doesn't want to help the off spring or has other needs for their current property, perhaps caring for elderly relatives?

Perhaps they would like to sell up and release some equity to provide for their retirement? Perhaps to buy a little BTL.

It is distorting the market if a certain section can be given hand outs whilst other less fortunate people can't.

How would the potential shortfall in IHT be recouped?

There is absolutely nothing stopping parents selling up and giving their kids the money now if they so wish, providing IHT and and social care needs are taken into account.

Percy1983

Good to see some logic about housing showing through, however you cut the figures we need to build more housing.