Nick Clegg: pay residents to accept new Garden Cities

Masomnia

My grandma always used to go on about houses she and my granddad could have bought, but my granddad decided against them (it was the 50s ) because they backed on to fields and he was concerned they could be built on. The house they bought has a large (for a three bed semi in Greater Manchester) garden, and the neighbours adjacent have an even bigger garden; thus the house is not overlooked. Since there's no room to build an overlooking house and no space for development but it was nice how it was they decided on the house they did.

Long story short, if you're making a long term investment you should think about the long term implications and possibilities.

I think this is bad news for Clegg too, as I'm part of that rebel band of renegade voters who voted Lib Dem in 2010 and is still glad they did... and think this idea is utterly ludicrous and despicable. Young people who are already struggling to save the deposits for their own homes would have to pay towards the homes of others as well their own as costs will be passed on. Disgusting idea.

CLAPTON

Masomnia wrote: »

My grandma always used to go on about houses she and my granddad could have bought, but my granddad decided against them (it was the 50s ) because they backed on to fields and he was concerned they could be built on. The house they bought has a large (for a three bed semi in Greater Manchester) garden, and the neighbours adjacent have an even bigger garden; thus the house is not overlooked. Since there's no room to build an overlooking house and no space for development but it was nice how it was they decided on the house they did.

Long story short, if you're making a long term investment you should think about the long term implications and possibilities.

I think this is bad news for Clegg too, as I'm part of that rebel band of renegade voters who voted Lib Dem in 2010 and is still glad they did... and think this idea is utterly ludicrous and despicable. Young people who are already struggling to save the deposits for their own homes would have to pay towards the homes of others as well their own as costs will be passed on. Disgusting idea.

have no fear, the LibDems are reverting to type and are simply making ludicrous election proposals/promises that they (rightly) don't expect to have to keep.

Masomnia

CLAPTON wrote: »

have no fear, the LibDems are reverting to type and are simply making ludicrous election proposals/promises that they (rightly) don't expect to have to keep.

I know, but previously the ideas had credibility!

michaels

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Indeed.

But were not talking about anyone knocking down your house to build others in this thread.

Compensation, which this thread is discussing, is very different to a mandatory purchase which would happen in your scenario.

Building a flyover right over your house is deserving of compensation, it affects your everyday life once it's built. But a garden city some miles away?

For example a house backs on to green belt fields and is worth 500k. Suddenly houses are built on the green belt and the house is now worth 475k because the garden is overlooked. Why should the home owner have an arbitary loss put on them? Perhaps they are now pushed into negative equity or can no longer afford an operation for their terminally ill child. Society gains from the new houses, why shouldn't the individual losers be compensated?

Masomnia

michaels wrote: »

For example a house backs on to green belt fields and is worth 500k. Suddenly houses are built on the green belt and the house is now worth 475k because the garden is overlooked. Why should the home owner have an arbitary loss put on them? Perhaps they are now pushed into negative equity or can no longer afford an operation for their terminally ill child. Society gains from the new houses, why shouldn't the individual losers be compensated?

That's like saying Tesco shareholders should be compensated because Aldi have come out of nowhere and pinched a chunk of their market share.

the_flying_pig

michaels wrote: »

For example a house backs on to green belt fields and is worth 500k. Suddenly houses are built on the green belt and the house is now worth 475k because the garden is overlooked. Why should the home owner have an arbitary loss put on them? Perhaps they are now pushed into negative equity or can no longer afford an operation for their terminally ill child. Society gains from the new houses, why shouldn't the individual losers be compensated?

Poor attempt at a wind up.

michaels

Masomnia wrote: »

That's like saying Tesco shareholders should be compensated because Aldi have come out of nowhere and pinched a chunk of their market share.

Not at all - Tesco always knew that other retailers could come and sell products at whatever price they chose, a purchaser who bought a house because of a 'green belt' protection that is subsequently been with drawn should be compensated. I can't understand why it is hard for others to understand this point.

Nikkster

michaels wrote: »

Not at all - Tesco always knew that other retailers could come and sell products at whatever price they chose, a purchaser who bought a house because of a 'green belt' protection that is subsequently been with drawn should be compensated. I can't understand why it is hard for others to understand this point.

But any 'asset' can go up or down in price. 'Green belt' land isn't guaranteed to be 'Green Belt' forever.

I think this idea is ridiculous. Compulsory purchase of land - fair enough. Just because something changes nearby - tough.

michaels

People have long been compensated if a major road or airport or railway line is built nearby - would you stop that too?

And even if it is 'wrong' (which I don't think it is), if it results in more houses being built than otrherwise isn't that a good thing?

mayonnaise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Building a flyover right over your house is deserving of compensation, it affects your everyday life once it's built. But a garden city some miles away?

Might affect your everyday life also. Whether it's a flyover, trainline, airport, motorway, nuclear plant or garden city, the principle of compensation in case of blight is fair. I don't see why it should be scrapped when it concerns garden cities?

michaels wrote: »

I can't understand why it is hard for others to understand this point.

I think they do, but just argue for argument's sake.