Milliband promises rent controls

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

Lets say that the country has excellent infrastructure for a population of 50 million

If the population increases to 60 million we would have to build more infrastructure at considerable cost (probably more than the original as the 'easy to do' things have already been done.

At the end we have spent a lot on money, and are no better off infrastructure wise per person than previously (if fact probably worse off ).

In an undeveloped country then new infrastructure is a positive

In an already developed (smallish) country then extra infrastructure to meet growing population is not a positive.


Costs of building more homes in London doesn't get cheaper for each extra unit : the exact opposite; similarly with extra transport links

I don't buy that

A lot of infrastructure is just utilised more efficiently. For example UK air passenger numbers have gone from ~100m a year to ~250m a year yet no additional airports (that I know of) have been built.

Most infrastructure is built at no cost to the state. For example two mega malls have been built in London by the Westfield group adding some two million sqft of retail space. Offices and shops and industry are self funded

Pretty much the only infrastructure you can talk about is roads and rail. Railroads were beginning to fail in the UK its only since the evil population growth that they have been saved by a surge in passenger numbers from unsustainable levels to more sustainable levels


Roads are an issue but its not an issue of population growth but of not moving fast enough (roads are updated all the time often the problem is that the work itself isn't completed quickly)


So once again I don't buy that infrastructure is a big net cost.


Having said that I don't think population growth is a big net positive just a small one in the mid to long term

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

The problem is a lack of suitable property to downsize to most developers seem to think older people want to live in blocks of retirement flats with high overheads. Which I any many others do not want to move into and small bungalows etc are not only in short supply they are expensive.

Not many old folk move into smaller homes nor do they want to its just a myth

Certainly I don't know a single case where that has happened out of free will


Regarding developers not building small homes. They shouldn't build small small they should all build large 120sqm homes (and 100sqm flats). The people who move into them will have vacated smallet homes and they vacated smaller homes yet. New builds should concentrate on the larger more expensive end of the market there are already plenty of crap tiny homes

stator

cells wrote: »

They shouldn't build small small they should all build large 120sqm homes (and 100sqm flats). The people who move into them will have vacated smallet homes and they vacated smaller homes yet. New builds should concentrate on the larger more expensive end of the market there are already plenty of crap tiny homes

Agree with you there. We have some of the smallest houses in the world (excluding micro nations)

Generali

Why not release building plots of various sizes and a selection of pre-approved houses? That way people can decide what sort of house they want rather than having someone else decide what sort of house is 'good' for them.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I don't buy that

A lot of infrastructure is just utilised more efficiently. For example UK air passenger numbers have gone from ~100m a year to ~250m a year yet no additional airports (that I know of) have been built.

Most infrastructure is built at no cost to the state. For example two mega malls have been built in London by the Westfield group adding some two million sqft of retail space. Offices and shops and industry are self funded

Pretty much the only infrastructure you can talk about is roads and rail. Railroads were beginning to fail in the UK its only since the evil population growth that they have been saved by a surge in passenger numbers from unsustainable levels to more sustainable levels


Roads are an issue but its not an issue of population growth but of not moving fast enough (roads are updated all the time often the problem is that the work itself isn't completed quickly)


So once again I don't buy that infrastructure is a big net cost.


Having said that I don't think population growth is a big net positive just a small one in the mid to long term

the issues of the value (some say necessary and essential) increase in population have been spread over a number of posts so I'll repeat previous issues about the costs of immigration and general population increase
-infrastructure costs of road, rail, housing, water and waste disposal, support facilities
-house prices in favoured areas e.g. London and the SE
-reduction in space and gardens of said houses
-deduction is quality of life due to more commuting, transport delays
-actual problems with access to NHS, doctors, dentists etc.
-extra imports of essential including food, fuel, gas etc. and the extra foreign currency borrowing required to fund the imports
-removal of incentives to improve productivity due to supply of cheap labour.
-general reduction in quality of life as many of our most beautiful place are more crowded.
-the 'benefits' of having a larger working population now, is simply a pyramid scheme as they will age so we will need to grow our population indefinitely if the aim is to maintain the same ratio of workers to non workers.
-all the studies on the benefits of immigration ignore non money considerations and all show no benefit within the margin of error of the estimates.


plus I'm sure a few more

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Why not release building plots of various sizes and a selection of pre-approved houses? That way people can decide what sort of house they want rather than having someone else decide what sort of house is 'good' for them.

that is the function of the free market
if there is a demand (that is allowed to be met) then the free market will build the right mix to meet the demand
our current lack of small places in the social sector is entirely due to socialist planning model where the state knew best what was required.
our lack of new bungalows is due to the planning rules about density of housing and of course their expense as they use a lot of land (relative to flats)

dinkylink

I have a question. Will labour (if they get in) be able to apply rent control and 3 year minimum tenancies retrospectively to existing contracts, or will these only be able to be applied to new contracts?

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

Not many old folk move into smaller homes nor do they want to its just a myth

Certainly I don't know a single case where that has happened out of free will


Regarding developers not building small homes. They shouldn't build small small they should all build large 120sqm homes (and 100sqm flats). The people who move into them will have vacated smallet homes and they vacated smaller homes yet. New builds should concentrate on the larger more expensive end of the market there are already plenty of crap tiny homes

Well I probably better inform that you as I am old and I would consider moving into a smaller home and I know people who have or are intending to.

It's the type of small homes that I and I suspect many others of my age don't like. So by building smaller homes that people like me would like they would free up the larger homes.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Well I probably better inform that you as I am old and I would consider moving into a smaller home and I know people who have or are intending to.

It's the type of small homes that I and I suspect many others of my age don't like. So by building smaller homes that people like me would like they would free up the larger homes.

that's interesting : what sort of home do you think older people might like?

chucknorris

dinkylink wrote: »

I have a question. Will labour (if they get in) be able to apply rent control and 3 year minimum tenancies retrospectively to existing contracts, or will these only be able to be applied to new contracts?

No they wouldn't do that. But more importantly they have already said (on tv yesterday) that 3 year tenancies will not be compulsory, there will be choice. No details as far as I know yet, but that choice will possibly be more with the tenant. But I can live with that, I would prefer 3 year tenancies anyway, but so far (in over 24 years) none of my tenants have wanted a contract over one year.