BOE Governor "housing has deep problems"

CLAPTON

Batty_Barry wrote: »

The problem has been obvious for a long time but nobody did anything about it.

The government should have been building council houses that would have helped unemployment massively too.

Leaving it to the market is madness as markets are driven by the insane.

difficult to conclude that building council houses would create more jobs that building similar owner occupier houses.

unless you have inherited wealth, without the market you would still be a landless day labourer work on the land.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is why so many, politicians included, have asked to look at land taxes. If they buy it for building, it has to be built on in say 2 years, otherwise it's taxed.

Should sort out the issues fairly quickly, though some say they would just put the prices of the houses up to compensate. Can't really see how that would work though.... otherwise, they would be jacking up their prices anyway.

Do you think it's possible for a large builder to buy land for a large site of, say, 350 houses, gain planning and then complete building within 2 years?

It's not so your plan guarantees that a land tax will be applied. You want lower house prices so adding cost to the process seems counterintuitive.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you think it's possible for a large builder to buy land for a large site of, say, 350 houses, gain planning and then complete building within 2 years?

It's not so your plan guarantees that a land tax will be applied. You want lower house prices so adding cost to the process seems counterintuitive.

once land is zoned for development then it will attract an annual land value tax whether build on or not.

as a potential developer will know this he will factor that into his cost structure so will be willing to pay less for the land.

it will encourage the owner to develop and sell or anyway use for productive purposes rather than sit idle

it won't solve the problem of too few houses but may make a modest contribution to better (productive) land usage

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Do you think it's possible for a large builder to buy land for a large site of, say, 350 houses, gain planning and then complete building within 2 years?

No, but then that's clearly not what I said.

The land would have to be built on. That does not mean that all 300 homes HAVE to be completed within 2 years.

What it DOES mean is that the land cannot simply be left as fields or whatever it may be for 2 years and then the planning permission rolled over after 3 years (which is what happens now).

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, but then that's clearly not what I said.

The land would have to be built on. That does not mean that all 300 homes HAVE to be completed within 2 years.

What it DOES mean is that the land cannot simply be left as fields or whatever it may be for 2 years and then the planning permission rolled over after 3 years (which is what happens now).

It looked like what you said.

How big a problem is the rollover of planning anyway?

System

Seems like an easy loophole, plop a brick on the ground and declare the land is built on.

ed110220

Bantex wrote: »

Some were good, some were bad. Most were built to a higher spec than many new build private homes currently under construction.

This is true, most of the earlier examples were better than new private homes, especially in terms of size. Locally I'm thinking of houses built by/for the council in the 1920s-30s and again in the 1940s-50s.

I think things started to go wrong in the late 1950s when the focus switched from building houses to building high rise flats. Before that, there was not the machinery in widespread use to build tall buildings on a large scale in this country.

One cannot have growing owner-occupation and a severely restricted supply of housing. By selling off council housing and not building more, all that has happened is that more and more people have to rent privately, spending far more than their parents did in council rent.

Ed

Bantex_2

ed110220 wrote: »

This is true, most of the earlier examples were better than new private homes, especially in terms of size. Locally I'm thinking of houses built by/for the council in the 1920s-30s and again in the 1940s-50s.

I think things started to go wrong in the late 1950s when the focus switched from building houses to building high rise flats. Before that, there was not the machinery in widespread use to build tall buildings on a large scale in this country.

Ed

The whole council housing ethos was different in the 50s.Tenants could be evicted for such things as failing to keep the garden tidy or any minor form of anti social behaviour. Then in the 70s it was decided you could only reality be giving social housing if you had "issues" and it all went down hill from there.

ed110220

Bantex wrote: »

The whole council housing ethos was different in the 50s.Tenants could be evicted for such things as failing to keep the garden tidy or any minor form of anti social behaviour. Then in the 70s it was decided you could only reality be giving social housing if you had "issues" and it all went down hill from there.

I came across a local newspaper from the 1970s that complained that council workers and officials no longer lived in council homes as they had done.

But I was speaking more of the physical type of housing that was built. Ironic to think that our whole road was finished within five years of the Second World War ending (most within three years) and to a high standard.

Ed

TickersPlaysPop

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you despise the under 50/60? and assume they are too stupid/lazy to vote?
maybe they just don't agree with your views?

I thought it was common knowledge that less younger people vote compared to older generations. If you insist on seeing evidence:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2008/rp08-012.pdf#page29

What makes you think I despise the under 50's? LoL I am 38 myself.

Political parties do not need to include in their manifesto pledges for the younger generation as much as they do for older generations. If there had been a larger young vote over the past 20 years I think we would have a different system for our housing market with more inclusive policies and laws.