geared Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I own several properties, but because I have a social conscience I allow people to rent them from me. I think I just saw Chem1st's house explode when he read that. So I'll step in for him my interpretation of chem1st's mental thoughts: You sir are the lowest of the low, complete scum. If you had any shread of decency you'd let that house out for free to some needy type, also convert the back garden to allotments! I don't care if you loose money hand over fist, or if the council fill it with scumbags who wreck your nice property. That about covers it I recon :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 Taxation could be one form of punishment. A harsher one would be forcing people to read all your tedious housing posts. Out loud. Cruel and Unusual punishment is illegal though ---------- Post added 13-12-2012 at 11:46 ---------- Chem1st - people should have the right to object to things without fear of punishment or censure. The objections may be overruled or even ignored, but it's not much of a democracy if you outlaw objecting in the first place. Whether they object from valid or selfish reasons is irrelevant to the right to object, the motive should only be taken into account when assessing the objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 I'd be interested in knowing where Green Web got their 2.7% figure from. This report (table on page 60) says that 6.8% of the UK is urban environment. Green Web's use of the term 'built on' is interesting. This Beeb article explains that it does not include things like domestic gardens, allotments, public parks, rivers, etc. Unless Green Web is suggesting that we should all live in complete concrete jungles, I'd suggest that the 6.8% figure is a more representative one. I believe the 2.7% is actual buildings (functional/idle and brownfield) and paved area. The 6.8% figure includes private/social gardens. Many gardens of council houses are actually large enough to build an extra house or too, and some private gardens are large enough to build entire housing estates. ---------- Post added 13-12-2012 at 14:06 ---------- I think I just saw Chem1st's house explode when he read that. So I'll step in for him That about covers it I recon :hihi: Please at least edit that quote to "my interpretation of chem1st's mental thoughts" rather than "chem1st", because even I was confused about that one - I certainly don't recall typing it, I don't think even I am that harsh to landlords Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 I believe the 2.7% is actual buildings (functional/idle and brownfield) and paved area. The 6.8% figure includes private/social gardens. Many gardens of council houses are actually large enough to build an extra house or too, and some private gardens are large enough to build entire housing estates. As are allotments and public parks. It doesn't mean they should be built over though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 13, 2012 Author Share Posted December 13, 2012 As are allotments and public parks. It doesn't mean they should be built over though. Aye, there is plenty of idle land to build on first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Aye, there is plenty of idle land to build on first. You mean unused green belt or agricultural land? Or land banks that are earmarked for building, it just hasn't taken place yet... Or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 NIMBYs are everywhere. They have it good, whilst others do not. These are people who have an advantage over others, mostly those with freehold property. These people benefit from having security of tenure and a roof over their heads, yet they often object to the same security of tenure and shelter being available to others. They are alright Jack Jones. And often end up on their own (society naturally punishes them in this respect). Surely we should we punish them through taxation, to encourage good behaviour and a society where people have equality of opportunity. People with freehold tenure homes and no mortgages upon them will often object to new housing, they will object to housing for disadvantaged groups, the homeless, the mentally ill, the disabled, the young and immigrants. They fear that allowing for others to be housed will affect their property prices, which is quite true. Much like hoarding all the food and refusing to share it, will lead to starvation and an increase in food prices. These people wish to protect and strengthen their position at the expense of others. This is not capitalism. These people are oligopolistic. They might be trying to ensure they benefit in multiple ways by objecting to projects which benefit others. For example, doctors could oppose housing for the mentally ill (poor housing is a well known cause of both mental and physical illness - those without any housing die very young indeed!). So by opposing housing for the mentally ill, they can ensure their property price remains high, and that mental illness is commonplace, thus guaranteeing themselves employment (they have no real incentive to cure their customers as they would be put out of business!). In some respects, the desire to better oneself is quite natural, but to do it at another's expense is clearly wrong, however there is nothing to discourage you from bettering yourself at the expense of others. Suppose we had a tax on property, would NIMBYs object to the housing of others, if they knew it meant property prices increased and they had to pay extra tax, which could hen be used to deal with social problems resulting from a lack of housing... If we had a property tax, there would be no incentive for the NIMBYs to object to the housing of others, and cause social problems in the first place. Currently we do not, and so these people campaign against helping others for their own benefit. Surely we should punish people for opposing the helping of others, or change the tax system so that these people do not oppose the helping of others in the first place. What do you think? Chem1st is on the fantasy subject of housing again. Must get a kick out of talking about housing. What about squatters who break into property and take whats not theirs to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 "Originally Posted by chem1st NIMBYs are everywhere. They have it good, whilst others do not. These are people who have an advantage over others, mostly those with freehold property. Surely we should we punish them through taxation, to encourage good behaviour and a society where people have equality of opportunity." Yes, we should definitely make the tax system more complicated, to drive our social agenda. I take it you propose to tax me if, having a view over a river, I object to a fleet of houseboats being built and moored on it to provide housing; or maybe I object to a block like the beloved old Park Hill Flats between me and the river. Of course, if I don't object, but others do, and the project never happens, then I won't get taxed. The lawyers will love it! Would the tax be flat rate, related to project value, or income based? Seriously, what benificent project has been stopped by these dreadful NIMBY enemies of society? have you a "pet" scheme they have euthanaised? At least Stalin or Hitler would not have allowed them to stand in the way of social progress! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 [What about squatters who break into property and take whats not theirs to take. They occupy stolen land. The real criminals are the men who stole the land! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 They occupy stolen land. The real criminals are the men who stole the land! Little confused as how someone can steal land that nobody had claimed at that point. Also how would you feel if while you were on holiday someone broke into your house and illegally started living there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.