Green Web Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletin/planningdaily/article/1108041/homes-opposition-revealed-despite-housing-need-recognition/ New decent homes are desperately needed, yet only 11% of the UK is urbanised. We are such a selfish bunch of people and forget that many of the flats and houses we live in now will have been designated green belt at one time. Its not just MP's and bankers contributing to the demise of this country, its all these nimbys and fashionable eco freaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 There may be a need for some new homes in rural areas, however it isn't the best solution to the lack of affordable homes at the moment. There are many thousand empty homes that could be brought back into use much more cheaply than building new ones. It would also regenerate some areas that have been allowed to run down. For isntance in 'Pathfirnder' areas people were moved out so that homes could be demolished and new ones built. In many areas the homes are still standing. The money ran out! Watch this programme, it makes lots of sense to spend the money on refurbishing victorian terraces, and custom built social housing blocks. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 There may be a need for some new homes in rural areas, however it isn't the best solution to the lack of affordable homes at the moment. There are many thousand empty homes that could be brought back into use much more cheaply than building new ones. It would also regenerate some areas that have been allowed to run down. For isntance in 'Pathfirnder' areas people were moved out so that homes could be demolished and new ones built. In many areas the homes are still standing. The money ran out! Watch this programme, it makes lots of sense to spend the money on refurbishing victorian terraces, and custom built social housing blocks. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/ evidence that would even provide anywhere near enough homes to solve the housing crisis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 There may be a need for some new homes in rural areas, however it isn't the best solution to the lack of affordable homes at the moment. There are many thousand empty homes that could be brought back into use much more cheaply than building new ones. It would also regenerate some areas that have been allowed to run down. For isntance in 'Pathfirnder' areas people were moved out so that homes could be demolished and new ones built. In many areas the homes are still standing. The money ran out! Watch this programme, it makes lots of sense to spend the money on refurbishing victorian terraces, and custom built social housing blocks. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/ I was going to point out exactly that, but you beat me to it Another point, there is loads of ex industrial land in and around most towns and cities that is available. I don't see the point in churning up green belt when there is already building space available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Web Posted December 7, 2011 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 I will watch the programme, but building on more would still be needed. Its more to do with the selfish attributes eco types and wealthy middle aged older people have towards others which will stop progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 There may be a need for some new homes in rural areas, however it isn't the best solution to the lack of affordable homes at the moment. There are many thousand empty homes that could be brought back into use much more cheaply than building new ones. It would also regenerate some areas that have been allowed to run down. For isntance in 'Pathfirnder' areas people were moved out so that homes could be demolished and new ones built. In many areas the homes are still standing. The money ran out! Watch this programme, it makes lots of sense to spend the money on refurbishing victorian terraces, and custom built social housing blocks. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-great-british-property-scandal/articles/home/ What we need to do is tax empty and 2nd homes more. 1 home, 1 council tax. 2 homes, 2 council tax. 2 homes, but one empty for longer than 6 months, 1 council tax + 1 double lot of council tax. We have NIMBY scum that are into buy to let. Not content with owning multiple homes and renting them out at vast profit due to the shortage of homes, they oppose new homes as it would effect the rental value/value of their homes in a market where there is a lack of homes. These parasites get tax relief, whilst the landless peasants get taxed ever higher. We should not be doing up people's 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes so they can rent them out at a profit. We should increase their taxes, and force them to give up the homes that are surplus to their requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 New decent homes are desperately needed, yet only 11% of the UK is urbanised. There is very little real "wild" land in the UK, everything you see now is post Industrial Revolution, the country was cleared and farmed to feed the huge numbers in the cities. Any land thats not farmable is probably not suitable for living on either, so if you plan to build houses on "countryside" land you will probably cause a drop in food production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgarian Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 What we need to do is tax empty and 2nd homes more. Which will just get added onto the rent of the tennants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 What we need to do is tax empty and 2nd homes more. 1 home, 1 council tax. 2 homes, 2 council tax. 2 homes, but one empty for longer than 6 months, 1 council tax + 1 double lot of council tax. We have NIMBY scum that are into buy to let. Not content with owning multiple homes and renting them out at vast profit due to the shortage of homes, they oppose new homes as it would effect the rental value/value of their homes in a market where there is a lack of homes. These parasites get tax relief, whilst the landless peasants get taxed ever higher. We should not be doing up people's 2nd, 3rd, 4th homes so they can rent them out at a profit. We should increase their taxes, and force them to give up the homes that are surplus to their requirements. I do tend to agree about the council tax, with some reservations. On the programme in the link - there was a an example shown of a guy who owned a house he didn't live in. He had moved in with his partner, and because his own home was in negative equity, he couldn't sell. So he was paying £400 monthly mortgage payments, but he didn't have the money to improve it to a standard to let. The suggestion was that the government have a loan fund, an owner in this situation borrows to do the improvements, then agrees to let the house (long term) at an affordable rent, and pays back the loan over a rental period. They showed an example of how it could work, a family were moved from an unsafe house (bad private landlord) into the guy's refurbished house, and everyone was happy. The man in question wasn't in the business of buy to let, he just had a house he couldn't sell. I thought it much better that someone got the benefit of it. But I didn't think it should be at his expense either. It was much cheaper than a new build, and it was in an established community where the family who got it already lived, and where the kids went to school. Its one solution perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I do tend to agree about the council tax, with some reservations. On the programme in the link - there was a an example shown of a guy who owned a house he didn't live in. He had moved in with his partner, and because his own home was in negative equity, he couldn't sell. So he was paying £400 monthly mortgage payments, but he didn't have the money to improve it to a standard to let. The suggestion was that the government have a loan fund, an owner in this situation borrows to do the improvements, then agrees to let the house (long term) at an affordable rent, and pays back the loan over a rental period. They showed an example of how it could work, a family were moved from an unsafe house (bad private landlord) into the guy's refurbished house, and everyone was happy. It was much cheaper than a new build, and it was in an established community where the family who got it already lived, and where the kids went to school. Its one solution perhaps. So this guy who bought a home he could not afford and has now moved into ANOTHER home, and could not sell it because he paid to much for it in the first place, gets bailed out by the taxpayer, get's tenants provided by the taxpayer, keeps his 2nd home and is guaranteed a return (along with his bank who should not have lent him the money in the first place). I don't think this scheme makes sense. Mortgage me up scotty! I'll have myself a buy to let and condemn a households to rentier slavery, courtesy of the taxpayer! That guy should have been taxed more heavily, he could sell his home at a loss, it was his own fault for getting into more debt than he could afford. He could go bankrupt, and be in the position of his tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.