Right to buy: Housing Associations

ukcarper

After a bit of googling average price of farm land was £10.6k an acre in 2014 while land with outline planning was £950k an acre in 2010 quite a difference.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

If the gain is much reduced (which I would expect) and taxed anyway it might reduce the availability of land for sale. As the capital gain reduces it's more likely the land won't be sold in favour of the yield (from planting crops etc).

how could that be ?


the price will be the result of the interaction between supply and demand
so a low price will be the result of a lot of supply (farmers willing to sell) and low demand (few buyers).

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

After a bit of googling average price of farm land was £10.6k an acre in 2014 while land with outline planning was £950k an acre in 2010 quite a difference.

A typical Taylor Wimpey development of will have around 10 dwellings per acre.

That's £94k of each home buyer's funds spent on a small area of mud before anything is built to change the status from without planning to with planning. It's almost criminal.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

the price will be the result of the interaction between supply and demand
so a low price will be the result of a lot of supply (farmers willing to sell) and low demand (few buyers).

It's not obvious to me why, if the price of land is reduced, how the balance of supply/ demand leads to lots of farmers willing to sell when the yield remains unchanged.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not obvious to me why, if the price of land is reduced, how the balance of supply/ demand leads to lots of farmers willing to sell when the yield remains unchanged.

when you say the price of land is reduced, do you mean by government cap or as a result of supply and demand?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

when you say the price of land is reduced, do you mean by government cap or as a result of supply and demand?

ahh I see what you mean.

I've assumed prices would be lower which would indicate I've assumed increased supply but we don't know for sure farmers will play ball and be willing to sell land in sufficient quantities to drive the price down in reality. They might emulate what homeowners did and go on a sellers strike - lower prices, lower volumes and reduced choice.

Graham_Devon

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/16/london-council-sets-up-as-private-landlord?

Interesting, considering this discussion.

A London council has come up with a radical solution to the capital’s housing shortage bypurchasing a block of flats which it will rent out to private tenants at below market rate.

Also confirms that it's revenue generating.

The homes are being let out at 80% of market rent, but will still produce a surplus for the council. Two bedroom flats will be available for £940, almost half of what it would cost in neighbouring boroughs such as Hackney where the median rent for a two-bedder is £1,700.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/16/london-council-sets-up-as-private-landlord?

Interesting, considering this discussion.



Also confirms that it's revenue generating.

interesting
although it would have been easier to just hold a lottery and give the 144 winners about £200 a month cash for life

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The only person even mentioning the government "building houses at fantastic prices" is you.

It's a strawman argument. No one has suggested the government would be able to build a house at "fantastic prices".

As for selling the stock the government owns, the key reason for not doing so is that that housing unit can help X amount of people in it's lifetime. (now that lifetime tenancies have been axed anyway) If you sell it to it's first tenant, it's helped one person. It also then doesn't have the potential for cost savings (such as Jason outlined) further down the line.

There are only two possibilities that the state is better at building new homes than builders who have been doing it for decades or that the state is not

If the state is worse at building homes then why should they build homes?

If they are great at building homes then they should build homes and sell them


In what way is a hypothetical state that's a fantastic builder of new homes doing better for it citizens by renting the houses to them rather than selling them the houses?

Mistermeaner

It is not viable to criticise the private sector as failing in house building while the public sector still controls planning and infrastructure - in a theoretical world where you can build anything anywhere and the infrastructure would follow the private sector would meet housing need through demand and supply just fine.

One man bands, self builds, small developers, co ops etc could all compete side by side with the big boys building quickly cost effectively and flexibly to meet demand. Public wants 2 bed flats with swimming pools and has the money to pay and up they go.

At the risk of repeating the issue with building and therefore restricted supply and therefore high prices is nothing to do with f failings of the private sector it's the public sector imposed restrictions.