Nick Clegg: pay residents to accept new Garden Cities

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well if that's what it takes to get more houses built it's probably worth it....

I'm not sure it will.

Nikkster

michaels wrote: »

So you would rather pay an ever increasing housing benefit bill because their are not enough houses so rent prices are bid up rather than 'bribe' a few people so that more houses can be built?

Don't forget when permission is granted and the land goes up in value the landowner will have to pay out a big chunk in capital gains tax that is likely to more than cover the incentive payments.

If the land owner would like to bribe the local residents I don't see a problem. I don't have a problem with garden cities being built, in fact it seems like a good idea. I disagree that the state should provide compensation for it happening.

The local residents may get all sorts of benefits from the development... Better transport links, a new local Aldi, a new GP surgery?

Graham_Devon

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?

What, because their house has reduced in value by 5%?

Give me a break.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

Funnily enough if your neighbour starts making anti-social noise you can complain to the council and get it stopped - of course if your neighbour offers to buy you state of the art triple glazing and give you £100 a month compensation for the noise you might decide you don't want to complain after all - exactly the same principle here, you suffer a loss, you get compensated.

You can try, although you're relying on your council to actually do something about it...

Meanwhile if they just leave the house in a terrible condition with a load of rubbish in the yard etc etc no one is going to come and give you a load of cash to make up for it.

Compensation should only be paid in fairly extreme circumstances in my view. Having some more houses built nearby isn't really going to make all that much difference to the value of your house and it doesn't warrant a big cash payment.

If people want to socialise their losses then they'll need to be prepared to socialise their profits to. If compensation is going to be paid for every small impact on the value of your home then you'll need to pay CGT on every gain you make as well in order to fund all the compensation which will need to be paid out to every tom, d!ck and harry who registers their claim for loss.

bugslet

I rarely disagree with anything you say michaels, but there has to be a first.

We need more housing, so there will have to be building and I'm with Nikkster in that whilst there may be short-term disruption, there will be long-term gains.

As with Masomnia's parents, I have thought of moving out of my house into one of the villages in Cheshire, but apart from more debt, I guess there is no guarantee that the land around won't be built on, so I may as well stay where I am.

I also never expected to be compensated when this was built

http://www.johnsiskandson.com/uk/sustainability/sustainability-action/environmental/runcorn-thermal-power-station

The thermal power station which is barely a mile from my home. there were various residents protest groups about the potential for a decline in air quality, the increase in HGV traffic, but I take the view that I live in an area where there is heavy industry already, so you may as well site the TPS in this area. It was built on waste ground that had been owned by ICI now Ineos. Should I wish to sell my home, then it is possible that it will affect house prices, all you can do is shrug your shoulders on that one IMO; we have a landfill problem in this country and this is a solution.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

Sounds reasonable to me - if 'infracstructure of national importance' blights your home - liek HS", you get compensated - why not the same for new housing, you may have bought on the basis of existing planning law and if suddenly a garden village is proposed that might affect the value of your house then you should be compensated.

Plus anything that gets some of the missing houses built gets my vote.

Brilliant, does that mean we can charge people who live near new desirable things for the increase in house prices that brings, or do you think buying a property should be entirely risk free but keep all the rewards

I'm in favour of measures to encourage more house building, it's just a shame that measures like this will just encourage more NIMBYism while people hold out for a better bribe.

michaels

N1AK wrote: »

Brilliant, does that mean we can charge people who live near new desirable things for the increase in house prices that brings, or do you think buying a property should be entirely risk free but keep all the rewards

I'm in favour of measures to encourage more house building, it's just a shame that measures like this will just encourage more NIMBYism while people hold out for a better bribe.

Funny you should say that. Businesses close to cross rail are being expected to make a financial contribution to the project because they will receive a big benefit when it opens.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

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

And it's often raised on here (infact, in the last couple of days) that house prices can rise in value thanks to new transport links.

Crossrail, HS2, the new ring road thing discussed in the last couple of days.

Where do you stand on this? One would assume you'd be in favour of handing any increase in the properties value back to the taxpayer or local community?

the_flying_pig

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And it's often raised on here (infact, in the last couple of days) that house prices can rise in value thanks to new transport links.

Crossrail, HS2, the new ring road thing discussed in the last couple of days.

Where do you stand on this? One would assume you'd be in favour of handing any increase in the properties value back to the taxpayer or local community?

to be fair the concept of privatising profits & socialising losses is a very well established one.

mayonnaise

the_flying_pig wrote: »

to be fair the concept of privatising profits & socialising losses is a very well established one.

When it comes to individuals, that concept is not too bad.

If flying pig loses his job, his bank goes bust and a flyover needs to be built next to his flat, I'm happy for the government to support, bail out or compensate that flying pig - aka socialising losses
If flying pig gets promoted and start earning serious money, or his assets increase in value, I don't expect flying pig to share that windfall with the wider community - aka privatising profits.

It's not that hard to understand.