London is a joke (moan)

quidsy

Factor in the "panic" buying too, people who are forced to over pay due to the risk to their own chain/school catchment/mortgage offer running out etc and it keeps many asking prices overinflated.

anotheruser

AdrianC wrote: »

You do realise that there are a heck of a lot of people who've been living and working in the UK for many years but aren't British Citizens?

This is where there would be "other circumstances". A bit above my pay grade to look into it properly, but the idea is there.

benjus wrote: »

I'm not sure how it was intended, but I took Jhoney's comment as asking "what if Spain/France etc decide to reciprocate by blocking British citizens from owning property there?"

What would you do with property that's already owned by foreign citizens? Confiscate it? I can see that scaring off anyone who's investing at all in the UK, not just in property.

I agree.
However do you think it is okay for British people unable to own their own homes because those in the East have bought up large buildings, homes, warehouses, land to reap the profits of pushing the price up?

I'm not saying that's the root of the problem, but it certainly doesn't help and there needs to be restrictions.

[sarcasm] Otherwise why don't we auction off the Houses of Parliament, or Buckingham Palace? Those, plus a few more could wipe off our debt in months! [/sarcasm]

I've also thought about restricting the amount of properties one person can own. People would get round it by the "business" owning the property, so more thought would have to go into those grey areas, but again, I'm not in a position to really bother to think it through, but the initial idea is in the right direction surely?

Then again, some people are just dead against stuff and will always have some sort of "this isn't a good idea question" to raise.

I wonder if there was a way to force house prices to come down, but all those who would then be in negative equity would also have the same rate taken off their mortgage so they're no longer paying more for something that isn't worth as much as it was?

Digsby

AdrianC wrote: »

I seem to remember Humpty Dumpty had something to say on that logic.



Perhaps you would be so kind as to re-read the question I actually asked?

On re-reading, I think I answered the question. Whether or not an asking price is reasonable or not is my decision, as a buyer.

Other buyers may disagree, and you seem to be implying that if a buyer considers an asking price reasonable, then it is a reasonable price on those grounds, which I cannot disagree with except to say that is then a sale price, not an asking price.

AdrianC

Digsby wrote: »

On re-reading, I think I answered the question. Whether or not an asking price is reasonable or not is my decision, as a buyer.

I think you may have ignored the last seven words.

Other buyers may disagree, and you seem to be implying that if a buyer considers an asking price reasonable, then it is a reasonable price on those grounds, which I cannot disagree with except to say that is then a sale price, not an asking price.

Indeed. And that is the ONLY number that actually matters in any way, shape or form.

AdrianC

anotheruser wrote: »

However do you think it is okay for British people unable to own their own homes because those in the East have bought up large buildings, homes, warehouses, land to reap the profits of pushing the price up?

I think money being invested in the UK, from wherever, is a total and utter irrelevance apart from to a VERY small and specialist market. It is also inward-invested money entering the UK economy, doing wonders for our balance of payments. The purchase price of these mythical new-build flats is promptly dispersed amongst builders, architects, materials suppliers and various other British businesses, as well as the Government's coffers. The council tax that is paid on these flats, at a premium since they're empty, goes to local Government's coffers - yet few services have to be provided to the (non-)occupants.

And, in a few years time, will they get their full investment back? If so, who from? From another absent foreign investor? With, again, contributions to the Government, estate agents, builders and decorators.

I wonder if there was a way to force house prices to come down, but all those who would then be in negative equity would also have the same rate taken off their mortgage so they're no longer paying more for something that isn't worth as much as it was?

Mmm. And where does the money to "take off their mortgage" come from? I think the retail banks and building societies might object to their balance sheet being written-down by a sizable percentage, don't you? And, of course, don't forget that the money being lent out ultimately belongs to those who deposited it with the bank in the first place...

Jhoney_2

quidsy wrote: »

The negative equity issues isn't my problem. If they weren't so greedy as to buy up all the reasonable priced properties maybe they wouldn't have negative equity. They certainly aren't complaining at the massive increase the lack of available purchase property has added to their value are they?


Like I said, your opinion, my opinion. I look at this purely from a buyers viewpoint. The economy is !!!!!!ed one way or another. At least deflate the over inflated property market & allow people the basic right to own their own home.

I don't believe there is such a thing is there? On a humanitarian level I would like to think there is a basic right to shelter, but we all see homeless people around.

Ironically, Margaret Thatcher introduced the 'Right to Buy' in 1979 (without a thought for replenishing the stock - which successive Gvts have also failed to deliver and can no longer afford to build) and in so doing, is single handedly the reason for the lack of housing supply which leads back to the OPs problem - demand.

Land, the just aren't making it anymore!

The main difference in price between any of digsby's examples are land (never has been an infinite), building costs (not coming down in the foreseeable) and demand (ditto)

Also, not withstanding reasons already mentioned as to why prices will not tumble too much or rates rise to fast, people in negative equity still have the option to

1. Sit tight and ride it out (still no more supply)
2. Downsize (more squeeze on FTBs)
3. Move to somewhere that has also seen a drop in prices and thus still affordable.

All possible if you start from the most expensive/in demand part of the island.

AdrianC

Jhoney wrote: »

Ironically, Margaret Thatcher introduced the 'Right to Buy' in 1979 (without a thought for replenishing the stock - which successive Gvts have also failed to deliver and can no longer afford to build) and in so doing, is single handedly the reason for the lack of housing supply which leads back to the OPs problem - demand.

The RtB reduced the availability of social housing - council and HA - but that's not what the OP, Quidsy or Digsby are complaining about. They're complaining about the opposite - a lack of property to purchase at what they think are reasonable prices. If anything, RtB _increased_ that availability, not decreased it.

The main difference in price between any of digsby's examples are land (never has been an infinite), building costs (not coming down in the foreseeable) and demand (ditto)

All of those could be addressed, relatively easily.

Land can be used more intensively.
Building costs can be reduced with alternative building methods.
Both the demand-price curve and the supply-price curve can be moved by a variety of economic and political measures.

Also, not withstanding reasons already mentioned as to why prices will not tumble too much or rates rise to fast, people in negative equity still have the option to

1. Sit tight and ride it out (still no more supply)
2. Downsize (more squeeze on FTBs)
3. Move to somewhere that has also seen a drop in prices and thus still affordable.

All possible if you start from the most expensive/in demand part of the island.

Quidsy's suggestions of increasing demand by forcing multiple-property landlords to sell properties in short order don't allow for any of those options, though. They would have to add their properties to a market that would quickly become saturated, leading to prices falling until demand can catch up with it - which it will, because those people who've been evicted from their rented properties so they can be sold have to live somewhere. Always assuming the lenders are willing to lend them what little money they have left following all the defaults and bankruptcies amongst over-leveraged ex-landlords...

Cornucopia

Jhoney wrote: »

I don't believe there is such a thing is there? On a humanitarian level I would like to think there is a basic right to shelter, but we all see homeless people around...

I agree.

Specifically, there cannot be a Right to Own in a region in which millions of others wish to exercise this right too, and there is not enough to go around.

Specifically (2), it isn't a just a Right to Own that is being sought, but a Right to Own at an affordable price, in a desirable area, with a good school round the corner and affordable, frequent public transport.

Cornucopia

Digsby wrote: »

I'll have to miss the first part of the addresses to get them through...

Thanks for the examples. I have to say that I've always considered Streatham and Tooting to be grossly over-priced, going back over a period of maybe 20 years. Streatham, particularly, with no Tube, I just don't see the appeal.

Fortunately for the good burghers of those areas, other people disagree.

In particular, there is the "nappy valley" phenomenon whereby young families are happy to live in urban Zone 2/3, where 30 years ago, they would have moved further out to get more space, less urban-ness and better schools.

Jhoney_2

AdrianC wrote: »

The RtB reduced the availability of social housing - council and HA - but that's not what the OP, Quidsy or Digsby are complaining about. They're complaining about the opposite - a lack of property to purchase at what they think are reasonable prices. If anything, RtB _increased_ that availability, not decreased it.

Agreed. But in doing so, those owners bought at a discount, sold at a profit and bought into the mainstream housing market - thus reducing availability and/or increasing demand IYSWIM.... the properties were largely supporting families. noone vetted the buyer re size requirement/need. When those children fly the new family coop, they are competing for the same stock. Sucession to the previous council owned one being n/a. MT also promoted the principles of free market capitalism.

All of those could be addressed, relatively easily.

Land can be used more intensively.
Building costs can be reduced with alternative building methods.
Both the demand-price curve and the supply-price curve can be moved by a variety of economic and political measures.

Yes and I agree there are solutions, but it's not being done so waiting for it to happen is a gamble too far imv and the OP et al are blaming LLs and greedy owners which is overstating their role to say the least.
This is the market, the fact that you cannot buy in it (at this time) is immaterial and doesn't mean unfair or unsustainable even if so. House values go up and down just like most things.

Quidsy's suggestions of increasing demand by forcing multiple-property landlords to sell properties in short order don't allow for any of those options, though. Agreed

They would have to add their properties to a market that would quickly become saturated, leading to prices falling until demand can catch up with it - which it will, because those people who've been evicted from their rented properties so they can be sold have to live somewhere. Always assuming the lenders are willing to lend them what little money they have left following all the defaults and bankruptcies amongst over-leveraged ex-landlords...

It seems it's always wrong when the benefit isn't a personal one. Those getting H2B etc complain about people on benefits. One is more socially acceptable and has been spun better, but it's the same taxpayer money.

As I have said before on this thread, I don't mind helping others - that's what tax was intended to do, but I do mind the hypocrisy and the assertion that it's someone else's fault that things haven't yet gone to individual expectations.