Halifax May +3.9% MOM, +8.7% YOY

TickersPlaysPop

wotsthat wrote: »

Well we've spent decades not building enough houses and, you might see if different, it hasn't solved anything. We could keep trying it I suppose and maybe the outcome will be different.

All those foreign buyers who leave their properties empty (that you fear so much) do so BECAUSE there's a housing shortage as it makes property a good investment but they are not the CAUSE. Building more houses will deter them. We wouldn't need elaborate taxes, time limits before BTL could buy new houses, HTB would die on the vine and HPI would be moderated.

You'd get the pleasure of seeing an insignificant number of foreigners receive a poor investment and Graham could get on his staircase to heaven. Meanwhile for the majority they'd find it easier to buy and rent houses in the places they want to live and work.

I don't disagree at all with what you are saying, and I don't think many people here would disagree. I would love for many many more residential properties to be built.

I feel that the number of homes that would need to be built to achieve what you have said above is unrealistic. Plus this one trick fix will not necessarily do what we want.

Do you really think we can suddenly start to build 300k properties a year, I.e. Double the current building rate?

If so.... how do you think this could be realistically achieved?

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Do you really think we can suddenly start to build 300k properties a year, I.e. Double the current building rate?

If so.... how do you think this could be realistically achieved?

Cost and complexity could be taken out of the planning system.

Apart from reasonable fees it could be made illegal to require builders to fund unrelated local projects to secure planning.

We could stop requiring new house buyers from having to buy new houses for social tenants.

These are reasonable and realistic but will be resisted by NIMBYs, town hall Hitlers and housing associations on the gravy train. Perversely I can see big builders being slightly resistant because being able to fund large bribes and whole departments to deal with planning effectively locks smaller companies from the market.

The point is if we've identified the root cause of the problem and the corrective action required a plan can be implemented.

TickersPlaysPop

So this seems like a political problem? Local coucilors can only get elected if they promise to stop house building in their back yard..... so how do we solve that problem?

Also, in the general election..... it is normally sounds bites of "I'll save your area and stop houses being built"

So... how does it become a topic that will win votes before the general election... And also, how do we get around the local government problem?

cells

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

So this seems like a political problem? Local coucilors can only get elected if they promise to stop house building in their back yard..... so how do we solve that problem?

Also, in the general election..... it is normally sounds bites of "I'll save your area and stop houses being built"

So... how does it become a topic that will win votes before the general election... And also, how do we get around the local government problem?

Councils simply need to have an incentive to work to solve the housing shortage.

perhaps a system of fines for under building. Each council should be forced to build an additional 1.5% each year. That would see a build rate of 400k a year.

For each house not built should see a £10k fine. For each home built beyond that point should see a £10k credit which can be used to offset subsequent yeara or traded with another council.

areas which are already past 10,000 persons per km2 should be exempt or have to meet a much lower target

Bantex_2

cells wrote: »

Councils simply need to have an incentive to work to solve the housing shortage.

perhaps a system of fines for under building. Each council should be forced to build an additional 1.5% each year. That would see a build rate of 400k a year.

For each house not built should see a £10k fine. For each home built beyond that point should see a £10k credit which can be used to offset subsequent yeara or traded with another council.

areas which are already past 10,000 persons per km2 should be exempt or have to meet a much lower target

Like London, where the problem is greatest.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

cells wrote: »

areas which are already past 10,000 persons per km2 should be exempt or have to meet a much lower target

Bantex wrote: »

Like London, where the problem is greatest.

Only a few areas in the centre of London have population density greater than 10k people per sq km.

Most of London is at much lower population density.

TickersPlaysPop

These ideas are great... but how does this win votes? For general election and local elections....?

Seems like polictical suicide?

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

These ideas are great... but how does this win votes? For general election and local elections....?

Seems like polictical suicide?

Why do you think nothing has been done so far?

AndyGuil

Much of outer London is greenbelt and so in the residential areas the population density will be comparable with inner London.

TickersPlaysPop

wotsthat wrote: »

Why do you think nothing has been done so far?

So, maybe publicise the problem and get more young people to vote?

Or wait until the situation gets much much worse to motivate young and older people to support change.

Or maybe the government will just do it once in power if pushed hard enough from a petition with a huge signing.

Or... Maybe this could be wrapped up with some sort of immigration deal.... ? Immigration and the housing problem are quite closely linked?

Immigration, housing, pensions, economic recovery and deficit reduction ..... could all be wrapped up to make it more politically digestible? On a national and local level?