New housing white paper

C_Mababejive

The real causes of the housing problem are
1) over population/too much migration
2)land banking and the low availability of land
3)the financial crisis driving up investment in new properties for rental

I read recently that soon the K will have to build 300 new homes a day and that half of new builds would be required for migrants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192506/UK-needs-new-home-five-minutes-house-migrants.html

Now of course this is the DM which many like to disparage but the article must have some validity.

I see it myelf. I work with the general public and it is my perception that more and more people who i deem to be migrants are taking up social housing and new build social housing whilst "our own" people cant get a mortgage,are shackled to high rents, sofa surf or live in cardboard boxes.

Meanwhile here in downtown Manchester the skyline is full of crames building huge new tower blocks,ghettos in the skies, of apartments,,all funded my Chinese capital and all for rent by UK renters.

The foreign investment companies are effectively building prison cells for UK citizens where they can live so long as they pay sky high rents.

The cult of the so called "young professional" has been promoted to mug people into thinking they are something they are not and encouraging them in the lifestyle of being a high rise apartment renting mug.

GreatApe

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The real causes of the housing problem are
1) over population/too much migration
2)land banking and the low availability of land
3)the financial crisis driving up investment in new properties for rental

I read recently that soon the K will have to build 300 new homes a day and that half of new builds would be required for migrants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192506/UK-needs-new-home-five-minutes-house-migrants.html

Now of course this is the DM which many like to disparage but the article must have some validity.

I see it myelf. I work with the general public and it is my perception that more and more people who i deem to be migrants are taking up social housing and new build social housing whilst "our own" people cant get a mortgage,are shackled to high rents, sofa surf or live in cardboard boxes.

Meanwhile here in downtown Manchester the skyline is full of crames building huge new tower blocks,ghettos in the skies, of apartments,,all funded my Chinese capital and all for rent by UK renters.

The foreign investment companies are effectively building prison cells for UK citizens where they can live so long as they pay sky high rents.

The cult of the so called "young professional" has been promoted to mug people into thinking they are something they are not and encouraging them in the lifestyle of being a high rise apartment renting mug.

Manchester is cheap and very affordable
My favourite affordability check, that the interest on the mortgage of a starter terrace is cheaper than the local social rents is met in Manchester

So with this extremely affordable city, why are the locals not buying in larger numbers?

I've put forward the idea that the removal of self cert is a big factor and demographic and lifestyle changes being a factor.

Your three points can be proven false all we need to do is find a cheap city where the population has gone down and look at ownership levels. And I know of one such town its called Middleborough. The population is down on the decade and so are prices so your theory and Clapton theory says that ownership should have boomed right? Well wrong. Ownership is down in Middlesbrough.

So it is not population not Chinese money not high rise prison cells and not mug people thinking they are something they are not. Those are all factors but small ones the major ones seem to be the removal of self cert kicking the 10-15% of the black economy from owners to renters and a change in and life cycles meaning people rent longer

CLAPTON

GreatApe wrote: »

And I know of one such town its called Middleborough. The population is down on the decade and so are prices so your theory and Clapton theory says that ownership should have boomed right? Well wrong. Ownership is down in Middlesbrough.

So it is not population not Chinese money not high rise prison cells and not mug people thinking they are something they are not. Those are all factors but small ones the major ones seem to be the removal of self cert kicking the 10-15% of the black economy from owners to renters and a change in and life cycles meaning people rent longer

I have repeatedly said that I think access to credit is a factor in the purchase of property in terms of OO and price.
I have repeatedly said I was referring to London/SE when referring to house prices and rents.
I repeat that I think it unlikely that London prices would fall if more credit was available for OO purchases.
And I believe that population does affect price. of both purchase and rent.

GreatApe

CLAPTON wrote: »

OK you believe that immigration has no impact on the numbers of people living in London and no impact on prices.

and of course you believe that easier credit would reduce he prices in London

Certainly an amasing view but so beit.

We are both speculating but I think I've put a good case forward and you haven't

Would you expect London persons per house figure to be lower than the SE had we not had the EU migration influx? No clearly not you would expect London to have more people per home almost irrespective of migration or population levels.

If build rates would have been almost the same over the decade which you imply and believe and so do I then the conclusion is easy.

Number of homes x number of people per home = local population

If without the mass migration of the last decade both the number of homes and people per home figure would be roughly the same so would the population

Now to be more accurate I think London population would be about 4% less than it is today without the last ten years net additional of 3 million net migration to the UK. Build rates would have been lower but not that much lower so overall Londoners and the people of the uk might be living about 3% less dense or roughly what the situation was 2-3 years ago in London.

That is far more sane than your wild speculations

CLAPTON

GreatApe wrote: »

We are both speculating but I think I've put a good case forward and you haven't

very fair minded of you

Would you expect London persons per house figure to be lower than the SE had we not had the EU migration influx? No clearly not you would expect London to have more people per home almost irrespective of migration or population levels.

If build rates would have been almost the same over the decade which you imply and believe and so do I then the conclusion is easy.

Number of homes x number of people per home = local population

If without the mass migration of the last decade both the number of homes and people per home figure would be roughly the same so would the population

Now to be more accurate I think London population would be about 4% less than it is today without the last ten years net additional of 3 million net migration to the UK. Build rates would have been lower but not that much lower so overall Londoners and the people of the uk might be living about 3% less dense or roughly what the situation was 2-3 years ago in London.

That is far more sane than your wild speculations

I don't see how this leads to your view that more credit would lead to cheaper property.

GreatApe

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have repeatedly said that I think access to credit is a factor in the purchase of property in terms of OO and price.
I have repeatedly said I was referring to London/SE when referring to house prices and rents.
I repeat that I think it unlikely that London prices would fall if more credit was available for OO purchases.
And I believe that population does affect price. of both purchase and rent.

What would the population of London roughly be had we 3 million less growth in uk population over the last decade?

If we had 3 million fewer people would the new build and conversions rate have been high or lower over the decade

With your answers in mind how far back would we need to go to see that situation in London? How many homes would need to add to London this instant to get to the same density

CLAPTON

GreatApe wrote: »

What would the population of London roughly be had we 3 million less growth in uk population over the last decade?

If we had 3 million fewer people would the new build and conversions rate have been high or lower over the decade

With your answers in mind how far back would we need to go to see that situation in London? How many homes would need to add to London this instant to get to the same density

What is your objective?
why do you want unlimited immigration?
why do you want London to be a majority foreign born city?

Conrad

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think they are trying to attract institutional landlords, largely from the likes of pension funds (at least that's what was said on one of the politics shows this morning).

I invested in Berlin and am familiar with the market. Institutional rent provision is commonplace as are long term rental contracts which institutions are apt to cope with.


Seems a very good model to me.

GreatApe

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't see how this leads to your view that more credit would lead to cheaper property.

I don't have time for you if this is your MO

I said with self cert gone the black and grey market that make up about 10-15% of the economy can longer buy thus ownership levels have fallen almost irrespective of local population or house price. Something which you seem to have accepted multiple times

The conclusion is that if you want higher ownership levels its not primarily migration its not house building its returning self cert mortgages to the market.

Herzlos

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do you want London to be a majority foreign born city?

Why do you keep bringing up the nationality of the residents? What difference does it make to the argument?