snap general election?

rick_chasey

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Scrap HS2. That'll pay for it for quite some time.
Re inheritance. The way cist of living and property prices are escalating. Inheritance is for many the only possible chance to get a permanent roof over ones head.

This is addressing the symptom, not the cause.

so we could;
reduce house prices by two thirds
reduce people's obsession with home ownership
reduce people's obsession with living in the south east of England
run workshops to help educate "young" people how to prioritise and manage their money

It's not about educating young people about money management. Most are honest hard workers with their heads screwed on. For youngsters down here in the Poole/Bmth/Xch conurbation and surrounding districts, they're stuffed either for buying or renting property. For gods sake! Bl88dy beach huts sell for £250k down here.
Do you suggest that all under 40s move to Middlesbrough, Newcastle or Glasgow?

so that leaves you reducing the price of housing by two thirds - what timeframe would be reasonable?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

The bizarre thing of course is that you are looking to increase demand so to drive up supply to a level that reduces the cost of housing would take a colossal effort over decades.

How would you reduce housing in each region to approx 4 times average earnings? and what timeframe? if all these disenfranchised had just seen house prices halve in value over the last decade would they be so enthusiastic to have a "place to call their own"?

DeVlaeminck

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

The bizarre thing of course is that you are looking to increase demand so to drive up supply to a level that reduces the cost of housing would take a colossal effort over decades.

How would you reduce housing in each region to approx 4 times average earnings? and what timeframe? if all these disenfranchised had just seen house prices halve in value over the last decade would they be so enthusiastic to have a "place to call their own"?

Build more houses, basically.

Relax the rules that allow NIMBY to rule roost.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

Hadn't realised this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rship_rate

graeme_s-2

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast.

Hadn't realised this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rship_rate

Me neither, I'd have guessed it would have been towards the higher end in Europe (and I'd have been wrong).

The stereotype is that we have a peculiarly British obsession with home ownership which is not present in other European nations where they have better rental terms/protections or rights for renters.

I'd be interested to see how that figure has changed over time. What was the % in 2000, 2005, 2010?

surrey_commuter

Graeme_S wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast.

Hadn't realised this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... rship_rate

Me neither, I'd have guessed it would have been towards the higher end in Europe (and I'd have been wrong).

The stereotype is that we have a peculiarly British obsession with home ownership which is not present in other European nations where they have better rental terms/protections or rights for renters.

I'd be interested to see how that figure has changed over time. What was the % in 2000, 2005, 2010?

30 year low
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... rship-rate

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

The bizarre thing of course is that you are looking to increase demand so to drive up supply to a level that reduces the cost of housing would take a colossal effort over decades.

How would you reduce housing in each region to approx 4 times average earnings? and what timeframe? if all these disenfranchised had just seen house prices halve in value over the last decade would they be so enthusiastic to have a "place to call their own"?

Build more houses, basically.

Relax the rules that allow NIMBY to rule roost.

that is a lot of extra houses to radically reduce the price of houses.

If you had seen house prices halve over ten years would you be so keen to buy?

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

The bizarre thing of course is that you are looking to increase demand so to drive up supply to a level that reduces the cost of housing would take a colossal effort over decades.

How would you reduce housing in each region to approx 4 times average earnings? and what timeframe? if all these disenfranchised had just seen house prices halve in value over the last decade would they be so enthusiastic to have a "place to call their own"?

Build more houses, basically.

Relax the rules that allow NIMBY to rule roost.

that is a lot of extra houses to radically reduce the price of houses.

If you had seen house prices halve over ten years would you be so keen to buy?

If it was cheaper than renting, sure.

The other option is you make renting much more tenant friendly, price wise.

The high cost of renting is half the issue.

graeme_s-2

Rick Chasey wrote:

The high cost of renting is half the issue.

It's not just the financial cost of renting though is it? It's also the rights of tenants, lengths of leases etc.

TheBigBean

A land value tax would solve productivity and property prices in one go.

Lookyhere

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

The bizarre thing of course is that you are looking to increase demand so to drive up supply to a level that reduces the cost of housing would take a colossal effort over decades.

How would you reduce housing in each region to approx 4 times average earnings? and what timeframe? if all these disenfranchised had just seen house prices halve in value over the last decade would they be so enthusiastic to have a "place to call their own"?

Build more houses, basically.

Relax the rules that allow NIMBY to rule roost.

Sorry but there are already too many houses in this country to support the infrastructure, they also build them in the wrong places, EVERY single fcuking town down here is being swamped with housing, the schools arent big enough, there are no leisure centres (closed down) GP surgeries and hospitals at breaking point and most importantly no local jobs, so people commute to Exeter. Barnstable, Truro and Plymouth on roads that are narrow and havent been upgraded since built decades ago.
the increase in traffic is absolutely amazing, small towns like Camelford in N Cornwal now have dangerously high levels of pollution that the council wants to buy back housng and relocate the families away from the A39, a few years ago, (less than 10) this was a quiet road that i d cycle on, no chance now.

when did the UK build a new significant length of A road or M way??? (m6 toll aside)

we need to stop all this buy to let cr@p its pricing people out of renting and buying property, in addition, property is remaining empty as landlords hold on as an investment or occasional hols letting - but so long as politicians also have portfolios of property, it wont happen.
Tax on 3rd and 4th homes needs to 80 or 90% we just havent the capacity to allow people to use housing as an investment.

mr_goo

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

mr_goo

The property system in the UK is bust. The only way I can see it being somewhat repaired is to have a government that is prepared to be draconian. Whereby buy to let is not only scrapped but outlawed. Plus 2nd, 3rd and more ownership of property for personal use by the wealthy for their weekend 'des' res'' must have severe and punitive financial implications ie; charge council tax at the property full market value on an annual basis.

bompington

Mr Goo wrote:

The property system in the UK is bust. The only way I can see it being somewhat repaired is to have a government that is prepared to be draconian. Whereby buy to let is not only scrapped but outlawed. Plus 2nd, 3rd and more ownership of property for personal use by the wealthy for their weekend 'des' res'' must have severe and punitive financial implications ie; charge council tax at the property full market value on an annual basis.

Oh dear, too much wrongness to know where to start.
But maybe you're right and we should try this...

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

Why not? How is that any different from a block of flats, or places where an entire village is part of a large estate? Or even a housing association? A large part of the problem is the terms of the tenancy. A lot more people would be happy to be tenants if there were more secure options. What grates is paying high rents (lack of supply) for poorly maintained 6 months at a time and 1 month notice shorthold tenancy.

mr_goo

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

Why not? How is that any different from a block of flats, or places where an entire village is part of a large estate? Or even a housing association? A large part of the problem is the terms of the tenancy. A lot more people would be happy to be tenants if there were more secure options. What grates is paying high rents (lack of supply) for poorly maintained 6 months at a time and 1 month notice shorthold tenancy.

A good point.
There is also another 'scam' if that is correct term. Lots of the new builds are now leasehold. The capital cost may be attractive to those that can afford the deposit and mortgage payments. But the real catch in this is in the detail. The lessee which is a management firm set up by the developer can increase the annual peppercorn rents and maintenance fees without any cap. This was revealed to me by an architect who knows of developments where these annual fees and charges have begun to outstrip the mortgage payments. I need to see evidence of this, because if true something needs to be sorted.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

Why not? How is that any different from a block of flats, or places where an entire village is part of a large estate? Or even a housing association? A large part of the problem is the terms of the tenancy. A lot more people would be happy to be tenants if there were more secure options. What grates is paying high rents (lack of supply) for poorly maintained 6 months at a time and 1 month notice shorthold tenancy.

A good point.
There is also another 'scam' if that is correct term. Lots of the new builds are now leasehold. The capital cost may be attractive to those that can afford the deposit and mortgage payments. But the real catch in this is in the detail. The lessee which is a management firm set up by the developer can increase the annual peppercorn rents and maintenance fees without any cap. This was revealed to me by an architect who knows of developments where these annual fees and charges have begun to outstrip the mortgage payments. I need to see evidence of this, because if true something needs to be sorted.

This was in the news the other day. The land rent on these properties is very much not a peppercorn, and can be increased each year. There is an option to buy the freehold, but at a heavily inflated price. A few of the big housebuilders have been at this and are now offering angry leaseholders alternative terms, but are strenuously denying any wrongdoing or compensation.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

are you a communist?

personally I would reduce the value of housing benefits as I see it as a transfer from the state to private landlords with private renters caught in the crossfire.

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

are you a communist?

personally I would reduce the value of housing benefits as I see it as a transfer from the state to private landlords with private renters caught in the crossfire.

I'm not a commie. I see the value in a capitalist environment. However it has become far too skewed to those at the top. And that isn't just the monetary element. The money of the elite has now become leverage and influence. Not good.
There needs to be a redistribution of wealth for the benefit of mankind and not for the few. I'd never have dreamed of saying that 10 years ago. But the chasm between poor and wealthy is rediculous now.

I mean, how many houses does one really need.... And that applies to the Royals too.

Call me a social capitalist.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

are you a communist?

personally I would reduce the value of housing benefits as I see it as a transfer from the state to private landlords with private renters caught in the crossfire.

I'm not a commie. I see the value in a capitalist environment. However it has become far too skewed to those at the top. And that isn't just the monetary element. The money of the elite has now become leverage and influence. Not good.
There needs to be a redistribution of wealth for the benefit of mankind and not for the few. I'd never have dreamed of saying that 10 years ago. But the chasm between poor and wealthy is rediculous now.

I mean, how many houses does one really need.... And that applies to the Royals too.

Call me a social capitalist.

Sounds like you are a communist in denial

rjsterry

For those claiming that there's no more room, have a look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Britain is not by any stretch disappearing under tarmac and concrete. Even London is one of the least dense major cities in the world.

That's not to say that development is always well thought through and infrastructure keeps up, but we are not running out of space.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

For those claiming that there's no more room, have a look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Britain is not by any stretch disappearing under tarmac and concrete. Even London is one of the least dense major cities in the world.

That's not to say that development is always well thought through and infrastructure keeps up, but we are not running out of space.

Of course we are not running out of room, thats a ridiculous idea but without infrastructure ie roads, schools hospitals leisure facilities etc etc then we are indeed running out of space and most importantly, quality of life.

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

For those claiming that there's no more room, have a look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Britain is not by any stretch disappearing under tarmac and concrete. Even London is one of the least dense major cities in the world.

That's not to say that development is always well thought through and infrastructure keeps up, but we are not running out of space.

Of course we are not running out of room, thats a ridiculous idea but without infrastructure ie roads, schools hospitals leisure facilities etc etc then we are indeed running out of space and most importantly, quality of life.

It's no more difficult to build the infrastructure than the houses themselves. Sadly neither is happening, in part because most acknowledge the need for more housing, just not anywhere near them.

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

For those claiming that there's no more room, have a look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Britain is not by any stretch disappearing under tarmac and concrete. Even London is one of the least dense major cities in the world.

That's not to say that development is always well thought through and infrastructure keeps up, but we are not running out of space.

Of course we are not running out of room, thats a ridiculous idea but without infrastructure ie roads, schools hospitals leisure facilities etc etc then we are indeed running out of space and most importantly, quality of life.

It's no more difficult to build the infrastructure than the houses themselves. Sadly neither is happening, in part because most acknowledge the need for more housing, just not anywhere near them.

Less profit in infrastructure.
Possibly...

mr_goo

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

are you a communist?

personally I would reduce the value of housing benefits as I see it as a transfer from the state to private landlords with private renters caught in the crossfire.

I'm not a commie. I see the value in a capitalist environment. However it has become far too skewed to those at the top. And that isn't just the monetary element. The money of the elite has now become leverage and influence. Not good.
There needs to be a redistribution of wealth for the benefit of mankind and not for the few. I'd never have dreamed of saying that 10 years ago. But the chasm between poor and wealthy is rediculous now.

I mean, how many houses does one really need.... And that applies to the Royals too.

Call me a social capitalist.

Sounds like you are a communist in denial

I'm not daft enough to realise that communism is an impossible social/political system. Those running it and human nature means it is flawed. Look at North Korea, they still have an elite within their hard line communism. So no, not a communist. I do believe in opportunity and bettering oneself. But there had to be limits otherwise it is detrimental for the good of humanity.

As for development. Infrastructure is the main issue. It is expensive and that is why developers try to get away with the bare minimum. I've stated in abother thread, that they should be legally bound to build and improve infrastructure according to different thresholds of development. Ie; roads, sewers, schools, hospitals etc, etc. But central government will never impose it, because housing would never get built.

mamba80

rjsterry wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

For those claiming that there's no more room, have a look at this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

Britain is not by any stretch disappearing under tarmac and concrete. Even London is one of the least dense major cities in the world.

That's not to say that development is always well thought through and infrastructure keeps up, but we are not running out of space.

Of course we are not running out of room, thats a ridiculous idea but without infrastructure ie roads, schools hospitals leisure facilities etc etc then we are indeed running out of space and most importantly, quality of life.

It's no more difficult to build the infrastructure than the houses themselves. Sadly neither is happening, in part because most acknowledge the need for more housing, just not anywhere near them.

immigration is still close to 300k per year, say only 1/3rd have a car, an extra 100k cars on the roads every year min!! on a road netword that hasnt been added to in the last 40 years or so.
many will settle, have kids or bring children in... skilled med staff and teachers take 5 years or more to train up inc uni, GP's and Doctors maybe 10 to 15 years, yet the numbers going into these professions is falling!!!!

personally, yeah i dont want housing near me, there are no jobs so people commute to large towns/cities...in cars.... there are few rail ways and bus services, so more congestion and cycling becomes even more dangerous...
down here, building the occasional new (but small) out of town shopping centre seems to be the councils idea of increasing local employment! like the 24yo serving you at ScrewFix can afford the £210k "affordable house" being built down the road??

why not build extra housing in and around existing conurbations? and more flats too, the green belt rules are out of date and need to be revised.

No party in this election is saying anything about infrastructure though, so look forward to the day when RR will be a distant memory on uk roads and cycling will be restricted to canal paths and mtb trail centres.

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

...so look forward to the day when RR will be a distant memory on uk roads and cycling will be restricted to canal paths and mtb trail centres.

Throw in dedicated cycle paths and I believe that this is the future for cycling. For many parts of the Country at least. I am anticipating it being mandatory to use cycle paths where available.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The problem with large swathes of the UK owning property, is they're all long property, so they are all collectively incentivised to keep prices as high as possible and to restrict any new supply with as much NIMBYism as they can muster.

We have some of the lowest property ownership rates in Europe and dropping fast. When all our property is owned by huge property companies no doubt they'll have the lobbying power to keep rents and profits high - the working life of the many will be to line the pockets of the few.

My daughters boyfriend has rented a room in a terraced house in Oxford. Nearly every house in the road is owned by one company. That should not be allowed.

are you a communist?

personally I would reduce the value of housing benefits as I see it as a transfer from the state to private landlords with private renters caught in the crossfire.

I'm not a commie. I see the value in a capitalist environment. However it has become far too skewed to those at the top. And that isn't just the monetary element. The money of the elite has now become leverage and influence. Not good.
There needs to be a redistribution of wealth for the benefit of mankind and not for the few. I'd never have dreamed of saying that 10 years ago. But the chasm between poor and wealthy is rediculous now.

I mean, how many houses does one really need.... And that applies to the Royals too.

Call me a social capitalist.

Sounds like you are a communist in denial

I'm not daft enough to realise that communism is an impossible social/political system. Those running it and human nature means it is flawed. Look at North Korea, they still have an elite within their hard line communism. So no, not a communist. I do believe in opportunity and bettering oneself. But there had to be limits otherwise it is detrimental for the good of humanity.

As for development. Infrastructure is the main issue. It is expensive and that is why developers try to get away with the bare minimum. I've stated in abother thread, that they should be legally bound to build and improve infrastructure according to different thresholds of development. Ie; roads, sewers, schools, hospitals etc, etc. But central government will never impose it, because housing would never get built.

How on earth could the Govt impose limits on what people earn and own?

I feel that your politics are those of envy. Your other approach would be to conclude that there is a strong rental market in Oxford so why not grab some of the action.