Why don't people allow necessary houses to be build?

[Deleted User]

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Why?.................

A shrinking population is necessary...so what is the problem with that?

A shrinking population would lead to gaping holes in our economy. The age distribution is changed - a shrinking population ends up top heavy with older people and pensioners.

Look at Japan as an example. Their wealthfare system is being hammered by their elderly population. They have very little immigration, and will likely have some significant cultural changes to come in the next few decades as their workforce becomes unable to support itself. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/japans-demography

Germany is heading that way but will counter it with EU immigration. Japan will have to change its ways or accept immigrants to increase its labour pool.

Immigration is good for a country when controlled. You typically get working-aged people and pre-trained (i.e. low costs, but good taxable earnings)

kingstreet

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I'd be happy if they built more new houses near me, if they also..

1) increased school capacity
2) hired some more GPs
3) Build some extra roads to support the extra traffic

They won't though.. we'll all just suffer.

Many areas are already bulging at the seams, but councils want to build build build..

Remember, 500 homes probably means an extra £600-700,000 in revenue to the council per year

76 new homes being built outside my back window on a very small piece of land between our estate and the nearest factory. Our nearest doctors is two miles away and over-subscribed. We have one shop.

As this is a semi-industrial place, it already takes 20 mins to get onto the main road between 4.30 and 5.00 as the workers go home. It can only get worse from here!

The borough (Stafford) is already building homes for 3,000 servicemen returning from overseas in the next eighteen months. The "key service villages" as we're described are taking a lot of that weight away from the town centre surrounds.

SailorSam

Ok Martin lets forget the docklands but all over the country there must be areas where there was once factories and warehouses, or even terrace houses that could be redeveloped.
The Liverpool Docks that are now apartments were once warehouses. I can't imagine that any polution that was in the river stopped them being converted.

m0bov

To many people in the country, we are only a small island.

Piggywiggy

I think it would be better if the number was relative to the size of village/town/city so say a small village gets 2 or 3 homes rather an being doubled or sometimes tripled in size, every area then get their share and we wouldn't have masses of new, in my opinion rather ugly looking houses.

Some people object because of the size of new developments, they don't want to be swamped in what they might have bought as a quiet peaceful home.

moneyistooshorttomention

ringo_24601 wrote: »

A shrinking population would lead to gaping holes in our economy. The age distribution is changed - a shrinking population ends up top heavy with older people and pensioners.

Look at Japan as an example. Their wealthfare system is being hammered by their elderly population. They have very little immigration, and will likely have some significant cultural changes to come in the next few decades as their workforce becomes unable to support itself. http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/03/japans-demography

Germany is heading that way but will counter it with EU immigration. Japan will have to change its ways or accept immigrants to increase its labour pool.

Immigration is good for a country when controlled. You typically get working-aged people and pre-trained (i.e. low costs, but good taxable earnings)

I understand the logic behind this.

But it's basically an unsustainable Pyramid System of "Let there be more people to fund the current oldest generation" and totally disregarding that, basically, the current oldest generation has self-funded adequately (courtesy of their NI contributions) and its not their choice/fault if that money has been nicked for Other Things en route to being used for its intended purpose.

Given that some of this NI contribution money has been nicked en route to its intended destination - then the whole system will break down somewhere along the line anyway and so whats the point of deferring that breakdown? Some generation - or another - will suffer the consequences of that breakdown (aka theft) as I see it....

...and speaking of nicking = its not exactly very fair of us to expect to nick the training foreign nationals have had in their own country is it? Their countries trained them up for their benefit - not ours.

varghesejim

marleyboy wrote: »

People who own allotments are bound to object to someone building on it. I have a large back garden, it was reflected in the cost of the property and I am proud of my gardens upkeep.

Imagine my horror if someone decided my garden was large enough to slap a tower block on. I would think I was in my rights to say "NOT IN MY BACK GARDEN!".

The issue here is not close to your scenario. Imagine you have an allotment in public land and the council decided the allotment to be relocated to build a lot of homes. IMO, your inconvenience gets far too less weight than the people who are enabled to get their own home.

moneyistooshorttomention

Piggywiggy wrote: »

I think it would be better if the number was relative to the size of village/town/city so say a small village gets 2 or 3 homes rather an being doubled or sometimes tripled in size, every area then get their share and we wouldn't have masses of new, in my opinion rather ugly looking houses.

Some people object because of the size of new developments, they don't want to be swamped in what they might have bought as a quiet peaceful home.

True.

When I was contemplating whether/when to move from my Home Area I considered a couple of nearby places - until I found that there was plans in place to double the size of them in effect (courtesy of a load of new homes). They were pretty much the right size as they were at present.

martinsurrey

SailorSam wrote: »

Ok Martin lets forget the docklands but all over the country there must be areas where there was once factories and warehouses, or even terrace houses that could be redeveloped.
The Liverpool Docks that are now apartments were once warehouses. I can't imagine that any polution that was in the river stopped them being converted.

You are getting it the wrong way around.

The waterway issue is that the developer cannot allow any chemicals to run off the land into the waterway while they develop.

the warehouse will have been used over the years and the chemicals (form use, spills, or just general use) will have seeped into the ground, as the developer breaks up the concrete and digs into the ground, these built up chemicals are exposed to the weather, they mix with rainwater and run in to the waterway, which is NOT allowed to happen, read the same with asbestos and the air.

(dont forget that historic ship building used a huge amount of lead, it is EVERYWHERE in historic docks)

So you have to spend £££ ensuring that you remove all harmful chemicals before they have the chance to leave the site.

and this is the case for every brownfield site, and almost all of them would have used chemicals in their past that are now controlled or banned)

varghesejim

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

the current oldest generation has self-funded adequately (courtesy of their NI contributions) and its not their choice/fault if that money has been nicked for Other Things en route to being used for its intended purpose.

On what basis you are saying the older generation funded themselves adequately? With current life expectancy of close to 90 years pension/healthcare support have to be be for nearly 30 years. Do you think the best fund manager could have managed the NI contributions to match this need? I doubt that.

Like it or not, it is the pyramid scheme which is supporting this countries lifestyle.