More Social Cleansing from Dave

danothy

stator wrote: »

:rotfl:
Property developers are hardly known for treating residents fairly.
I've heard of a million broken promises regarding regeneration schems.
"We will fit all homes with free solar panels". Never happened
"Everyone who leaves will get a unit in the new houses". Never happened.
"30% will be 'affordable'". Reduced to 20% after all the old houses are demolished.
"We will build a new swimming pool for the area". Never happened
"We will reinvest the money in the airport". Closed the airport.

You've listed five here rather than a million, which I suppose is reasonable as an example of the million you know of. Can you tell us on which specific regeneration schemes these promises were broken?

lisyloo

HornetSaver wrote: »

Yes. And where are they going to live if London is purely private sector?

If they are long term unproductive people then it doesn't matter where they live, so I'd suggest places that have supply. If that supply does not exist (even after people have moved to London) then the places that have the most suitable building land.

My view is that they deserve food, water, clothing, shelter etc. But not to chose where they live at the tax payers expense (unless there are medical reasons like being near dialysis).

N1AK

stator wrote: »

I don't know how he thinks single mums, pensioners and disabled people are going to buy the overpriced flats he builds where the council flats used to be.

There's a difference between not knowing and not caring. It's pretty clear from things like how they wanted to trash tax credits before the changes to the minimum wage come in that they don't give a Van Damme.

csgohan4

Moby wrote: »

They also buy up land and don't do anything on it for years to maximise their returns while homelessness in London grows and grows!:mad:

Even if the land was built on by private developers, would the homeless people afford to stay in them? would the property developers give out homes for free?.

HB only goes so far.

lisyloo

Private developers build for profit (of course) so in central London they build posh apartments for rich people e.g. Studio £975k (Barrett monster house). Highly paid professionals cannot afford that.
If we want new housing stock for the poor then either it needs to be done by the private sector of the government needs to insist the big developers do it.

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

They also buy up land and don't do anything on it for years to maximise their returns while homelessness in London grows and grows!:mad:

if builders don't build, how do they pay dividends to their greedy pension fund shareholders?

cells

Rich2808 wrote: »

They are seeking to expand shared ownership though and the salary thresholds are being raised to £80k outside London and £90k in London. Yes it's got so mad we are now having to offer government help to people earning £90k to buy 25 per cent of a fiat.

You are paying a huge premium for security of tenure - which council houses used to offer. And it's disgusting that any developer or HA should be able to sell a new build on a short 99 year lease meaning within 30 years of ownership it becomes almost unmortgageable. What a scam - it's no wonder housing association Chief Execs are amongst the most highly paid in the public sector.

indeed shared ownership should have to be issued with a 999 year lease at a low ground rent (£10pa or nil). Else its a scam to con people into paying for a house where the housing association is effectively repossessing 1% of it per year

cells

HornetSaver wrote: »

Yes. And where are they going to live if London is purely private sector?

London does not need to go to 0 social homes, however currently some inner London boroughs are 40% social homes. That really should drop towards 15%

The government should force the councils to sell at auction their zone 1-3 London properties as they become vacant. You are looking at about 10,000 sales a year and that would bring in some £3-£4 billion a year.

That money should then be used to expand London tube and train network to allow it to grow further. The £3-4B in council home sales per year in London could employ 100,000 people and boost the economy too.

lisyloo

CLAPTON wrote: »

if builders don't build, how do they pay dividends to their greedy pension fund shareholders?

They do build of course, but they keep supply low to keep prices high.
The government could change this by taxing land not built on after a certain period, perhaps on a sliding scale.
Some call this type of tax theft, but should they be able to do this?

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

They do build of course, but they keep supply low to keep prices high.
The government could change this by taxing land not built on after a certain period, perhaps on a sliding scale.
Some call this type of tax theft, but should they be able to do this?

yes they should be free to do that but generally they dont because in business profit may be king but cash flow is god.

there land banks in the North the Midlands and Yorkshire&Humber (about half the country) where prices have not gone up in 10-12 years which suggests there is a need for land banks other than expected price increases.


PS:

If I were a big builder I would build everything asap (given business constraints) as costs and regulations generally only ever go up. If I felt prices could be higher in 5 years time I would still build today and just rent them out for 5 years before selling them. Of course that requires a lot of capital but it should be possible to finance it.