Rents soar to (another) record high

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

stator wrote: »

Houses are not being built to be rented out. If you regulate rents it will have no effect on housing supply whatsoever.

Untrue.

The majority of new builds over the last couple of decades have been built to rent out.

Between 1986 and 2012, 57 per cent of all new dwellings created were private homes to rent

http://www.cityam.com/220861/bashing-buy-let-landlords-will-push-rents-and-hit-uk-economy-hard

Cap rents and supply of new housing will dry up to almost nothing.

It would be an economically illiterate idea.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Untrue.

The majority of new builds over the last couple of decades have been built to rent out.


http://www.cityam.com/220861/bashing-buy-let-landlords-will-push-rents-and-hit-uk-economy-hard

Cap rents and supply of new housing will dry up to almost nothing.

It would be an economically illiterate idea.

well, if the 'chairman of the Residential Landlords Association.' says so, it must be true, right?

:shocked:

stator

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Untrue.

The majority of new builds over the last couple of decades have been built to rent out.


http://www.cityam.com/220861/bashing-buy-let-landlords-will-push-rents-and-hit-uk-economy-hard

Cap rents and supply of new housing will dry up to almost nothing.

It would be an economically illiterate idea.

Houses vs dwellings.
Country needs more houses, fewer 'dwellings'

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

Houses vs dwellings.
Country needs more houses, fewer 'dwellings'

in London where exactly would you put houses rather than dwellings?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The majority of new builds over the last couple of decades have been built to rent out.

What?

They haven't been built to rent out at all.

What you mean is that they have been bought by BTL landlords.

"Bought to rent" and "built to rent" are two completely different things.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What?

They haven't been built to rent out at all.

What you mean is that they have been bought by BTL landlords.

"Bought to rent" and "built to rent" are two completely different things.

you are of course correct

most houses have been built to sell

stator

CLAPTON wrote: »

in London where exactly would you put houses rather than dwellings?

Abolish green belt. No need for them to be in London anymore :money:

remorseless

stator wrote: »

Time for rents to be regulated. Too many greedy slumlords in the private sector.

Why? If people would stop accepting to pay high rents, eventually they'd go down...
One size fits all won't work in the UK!

If you build more, more will come... so same problem really!

Conrad

stator wrote: »

Abolish green belt. No need for them to be in London anymore :money:

Magicall green space, once it's gone it's gone forever. Is this really all there is for us, the ever expanding Human swarm, congestion, noise, road kill, concrete.

You know we have no food security right? That we already import halve our requirements? What if
Russia kicks off or a truly dire depression hits and we can't import it? Those green spaces you want covered in Barrat Homes currently produce food.

cells

Conrad wrote: »

Magicall green space, once it's gone it's gone forever. Is this really all there is for us, the ever expanding Human swarm, congestion, noise, road kill, concrete.

You know we have no food security right? That we already import halve our requirements? What if
Russia kicks off or a truly dire depression hits and we can't import it? Those green spaces you want covered in Barrat Homes currently produce food.

to harm the majority constantly by never building on green land to try and reduce the nil risk of the aftermath of attacking a nuclear power is stupid