Nick Clegg: pay residents to accept new Garden Cities

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We shouldn't need to be paid in order to accept the development and future proof of this country. We should welcome it really. Just shows how selfish we truly are if we need backhanders in order to accept moving forward for future generations.

Maybe it's better to deal with how people really behave rather than rue the fact they don't behave we think they should.

For the long term benefit of the country maybe handing out a few holidays here and there might be worthwhile. Who knows - it might save money if there are less objections.

Not that it matters - it's just Nick Clegg trying to increase his profile.

the_flying_pig

mayonnaise wrote: »

...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...

as before i'm sure you're on a windup here, but, i mean, no government anywhere makes it its job to make me indifferent between bad stuff happening to me & not - rather it's to provide me with a safety net of some kind.

e.g. if i lose my job then government will pay me dole money, rather than my full lost salary [for ever?].

similarly if i lose a leg in an accident, government will patch me up, give me a pair of crutches, & whatnot, but it's not, y'know, an insurer who says, 'hmm, i reckon you're about, oh, a couple of hundred grand equivalent worse off as a result of that accident, so here you go'.

building a garden city wouldn't be unreasonable, or illegal, or whatever behaviour by government, it'd just be doing what it always used to do back in teh day & that normal governments in other countries do all the time.

MRMX9

Presumably if you get compensation from the government if its policies reduce your house price – the logic should surely be that if government policies increase your house price you should pay a tax on the increase (e.g. quantitative easing, low interest rates planning rules, lack of delivery of council housing, help to buy, immigration over the last 20 years etc etc). Because lets face it many/most home owners in the areas where the new garden cities are being built have seen a 300-400% rise in their house prices in the last 10-15 years – in no small part due to direct or indirect government policies!

The point being where does this end – you get a bailout if you lose but if you gain you keep the profits.

Ultimately if the government builds or funds the building more housing locally – so your kids or grandkids can get somewhere to live locally – why should you get compensation if your price falls a little. Don’t we have enough subsidies for the over 50s at the expense of the young?

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

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.

And property owners? Or are we just going to band around effectively unrelated points should the government be responsible for covering property price falls, if so why shouldn't they also get the benefit of property price increases?

It seems odd to me that poor policing or schools can massively influence property prices but no one thinks the government should be on the hook for that, but they should if there's a couple of new houses being built in the same region!