"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:20:36 +0000, Steve Fitzgerald
] wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes


It's all very well providing 'affordable housing' and very laudable it
is. Not everybody is able to afford or even wish to buy their own
property, however cheap you might make it.

Affordability: price is a function of supply and demand. Supply can
be increased as indicated up thread. Demand would be reduced if HMG
ceased accepting the dregs of Eastern Europe. The UK is hardly short
of bottom feeders.

As to wishing to rent. That is am excellent point. I certainly do
not buy a home in every City and Town wherein I work. Within the last
five years I have rented for two months in San Diego and for nine in
South El Monte.

Moreover when I first started esteblishing a presence on England's
south coast, I rented for two years until I saw a home I wanted to
buy, and was ready to do so.

So the answer is that old fashioned council house (social housing
nowadays).

Affordability: price is a function of supply and demand. Supply can
be increased as indicated up thread. Demand would be reduced if HMG
ceased accepting the dregs of Eastern Europe. The UK is hardly short
of her own bottom feeders.

As to wishing to rent. That is an excellent point. I certainly do
not buy a home in every City and Town wherein I work. Within the last
five years I have rented for two months in San Diego and for nine in
South El Monte.

Moreover when I first started establishing a presence on England's
south coast, I rented for two years until I saw a home I wanted to
buy, and was ready to do so.

So the answer is that old fashioned council house (social housing
nowadays).

For goodness sake why? The private sector can do it better and more
efficiently. By all means allow local authorities to contract with a
supplier to provide interim affordable rented homes.

But, spare us the humiliating experience of the council estate. Those
home should be sold ASAP.

They are available to the masses at a price that can be
afforded.

Ah, those "masses" what are they demanding now?

Yes they may need to be subsidised to a point but isn't that
what Society is about and better than tax credits?

Tax credits are a nonsense. Employers should pay a living wage or
move over. Why should another man's taxes subsidize bad employers?

Supporting our
weaker members should be what 'we' do?

Yes, we absolutely should, thru family, church, synagogue, friends and
charities not by stealing from worker's pay packets.

Remember: give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and
feed him and his family for life.

-s-s-s-s-
"Teach a man to fish and he has to buy bamboo rods, graphite reels,
monofilament lines,
neoprene waders, tackle boxes, lures, spinners, 20-pocket vests, fish
finders, depth sounders,
radar, boats, trailers, GPS, coolers and six-packs."
Anon (unless someone knows better).

Envo

In message , at 16:38:46 on
Sat, 23 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Remember: give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and

He'll spend all day in a boat drinking beer.
--
Roland Perry

Pseudo-palliatives: the Government knows as well as you
and I they won't work.

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 11:41:46 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:



You clearly believe government should be in the housing for rent
market.

Yes I do!

We have a situation at the moment where house prices to buy/rent are way
above what a large part of the electorate can afford. This has led to
windfall profits for owners of land that can get properties built on their
land.

We are attempting (and failing IMHO) to fix that problem by mandating that
a
percentage of houses are available on a "low cost" basis to the prices out
demographic by subsidising them using money taken out of the pockets of
the
purchasers of the more expensive properties - rather than from the people
who have made the windfall profits.

I think that wrong. We should be stopping the windfall profits, not
"taxing"
house purchasers.

And, short of directly taxing those windfall profits (and idea that has
been
mooted but abandoned as impractical), the only solution to the problem is
to bring down the price of new build properties (and hence the value of
the
land they are sitting on) by swamping the market with millions of new
houses.

And it is impossible to expect private developers to build this excess of
house as they would have to buy the land to put them on at the inflated
prices (and hence go bankrupt in the process) The only way that we can
achieve this is if government agencies commission the house on land that
they have acquired at un-inflated prices.



And as I'm shortly to be retire and start living off my "pile",
accumulated
mostly due to this perverse increase in house values - overall I don't
give
a damn if UK PTB solve this problem, so you can shoot the messenger if you
wish


Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

Because the private sector will have to build at today's land prices of 100K
per plot, plus 100K per build and be left with zero profit and zero
overhead for financing and sales costs. End result - bankrupt private
builder.

We have to break the high land costs before we can ask the private sector to
get involved. Nothing else will work (IMHO)

And, tenants tend to respect another person
property, more so than public property.

I don't see how the builder of the property changes the owner/tenant
relationship

We should be looking at a new crop of new towns.

That doesn't negate from my proposal

These could be at
key nodes on the East-West Rail link, extending down to Didcot at one
end and towards Felixstowe at the other.

But:

Nimbies!

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about one
notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have to" and
the only reason people do live there is because it is "affordable" and has
excellent rail connections (to London). The town council have planes for a
20,000 estate on the edge of town.

And all the nimbies complain, "we don't want out town to get any bigger",
"it would change the character of the town" (like it had one to lose) etc...
None of the complaints are about "genuine" concerns like the towns
facilities couldn't cope, because they can, but that would be a major
concern in many places

The London Boroughs should be looking at densification around key
transit nodes with high rise developments for singles and empty
nesters.

High rises are the pits.

Even when well managed, which most aren't.

When a developer wants to build a new retail development, the
authority should ask "and how much commercial, and residential, space
to you plan to put above it.

Building residential property above commercial is not popular with
residents, particularly OOs. The need to manage the site as a single entity
but to different expectations make the costs of maintaining the properties
very expensive

tim

Welcome to this forum.

I'm afraid I have to cross swords with you. Few people
are as opposed to mass immigration as I but, living
alongside immigrants from all over the world, I do not
regard them as dregs. Indeed it can be argued that
those who leave their country to work abroad have more
energy, will power and self confidence than is normal and
might well be the cream of their country's population.

Please moderate your rhetoric in future.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
.. .



Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

Because the private sector will have to build at today's land prices of 100K
per plot, plus 100K per build and be left with zero profit and zero
overhead for financing and sales costs. End result - bankrupt private
builder.

We have to break the high land costs before we can ask the private sector to
get involved. Nothing else will work (IMHO)

Then I have bad news for you: They are not making any more land. Its
price will rise.

And, tenants tend to respect another person
property, more so than public property.

I don't see how the builder of the property changes the owner/tenant
relationship

To be clear I was referencing the property owner. People tend, only
tend mind, to respect private property above public property. Not
saying that is right. It is the way it is.

We should be looking at a new crop of new towns.

That doesn't negate from my proposal

These could be at
key nodes on the East-West Rail link, extending down to Didcot at one
end and towards Felixstowe at the other.

But:

Nimbies!

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about one
notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have to" and
the only reason people do live there is because it is "affordable" and has
excellent rail connections (to London). The town council have planes for a
20,000 estate on the edge of town.

And all the nimbies complain, "we don't want out town to get any bigger",
"it would change the character of the town" (like it had one to lose) etc...
None of the complaints are about "genuine" concerns like the towns
facilities couldn't cope, because they can, but that would be a major
concern in many places

That is an issue. But look at the original Garden Cities, and the
post WWII New Towns. They have worked pretty well. And they coped
with London's overspill.

The London Boroughs should be looking at densification around key
transit nodes with high rise developments for singles and empty
nesters.

High rises are the pits.

You think so?

Take a bus ride along Wilshire Blvd thru Century City, and thru the
border with Westwood, in Los Angeles County. It is lined with some of
the world's most desirable residences. And, they sure ain't low rise.

Even when well managed, which most aren't.

When a developer wants to build a new retail development, the
authority should ask "and how much commercial, and residential, space
to you plan to put above it.

Building residential property above commercial is not popular with
residents, particularly OOs. The need to manage the site as a single entity
but to different expectations make the costs of maintaining the properties
very expensive

S'funny you should say that. I own a unit above retail. In this
instance the space below is leased by Majestic Wine. And I am very
happy with it. It is just over four years old and in the past couple
of months all the communal areas have been redecorated.

Would be nice to have an onsite receptionist like the unit wherein I
once lived in downtown Los Angeles. But, then the service charges
would be a LOT higher. All in all I am very happy with my unit.

On 23/01/2016 20:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:38:46 on
Sat, 23 Jan 2016, e27002 aurora remarked:

Remember: give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and

He'll spend all day in a boat drinking beer.

/Disappear for whole weekends.
--
Phil Cook

In message , at 13:22:54 on Sun, 24
Jan 2016, Phil Cook remarked:

Remember: give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and

He'll spend all day in a boat drinking beer.

/Disappear for whole weekends.

Some wives might regard that as a bonus!
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:56:10 on Sun, 24 Jan
2016, tim..... remarked:

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about
one notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have
to" and the only reason people do live there is because it is
"affordable" and has excellent rail connections (to London). The town
council have planes for a 20,000 estate on the edge of town.

Planes, or do you mean individual gyrocopters piloted by commuters in
Bakofoil suits?
--
Roland Perry

"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


"e27002 aurora" wrote in message
. ..



Wouldn't think of shooting you for one moment Tim. I agree with your
diagnosis. I disagree with your treatment plan.

Government should set the rules and regulate. Private industry can
always do a better job.

But it can't.

We can't say to the private sector "We want you to build 2 million houses
"tout suite", and release them all onto the market at the same time in
order
to push the average selling price for these houses down from 300K to 200K
(other price bands are available)

There is no silver bullet. It will take time for the free market to
find its equilibrium.

well yes

that is why I said they were failing to solve it.

It will take a big crash with a lot of casualties to get back to
equilibrium. I thought 2007 was it, but no the Tories managed to magic up a
new boom (as the only way that they were going to get re-elected)

On the basis of past evidence, I don't expect it in my lifetime (not my
problem)

Because the private sector will have to build at today's land prices of
100K
per plot, plus 100K per build and be left with zero profit and zero
overhead for financing and sales costs. End result - bankrupt private
builder.

We have to break the high land costs before we can ask the private sector
to
get involved. Nothing else will work (IMHO)

Then I have bad news for you: They are not making any more land. Its
price will rise.

As I said previously, I don't care

They may not be making any more land but they could double the amount that
is built on and only the Nimbies would notice

And, tenants tend to respect another person
property, more so than public property.

I don't see how the builder of the property changes the owner/tenant
relationship

To be clear I was referencing the property owner. People tend, only
tend mind, to respect private property above public property. Not
saying that is right. It is the way it is.

To be clear, I wasn't advocating sale or rental, just an increase in overall
supply

We should be looking at a new crop of new towns.

That doesn't negate from my proposal

These could be at
key nodes on the East-West Rail link, extending down to Didcot at one
end and towards Felixstowe at the other.

But:

Nimbies!

I'll give you one example. I have just moved from a town that is about
one
notch up from "you really don't want to live here unless you have to" and
the only reason people do live there is because it is "affordable" and has
excellent rail connections (to London). The town council have planes for
a
20,000 estate on the edge of town.

And all the nimbies complain, "we don't want out town to get any bigger",
"it would change the character of the town" (like it had one to lose)
etc...
None of the complaints are about "genuine" concerns like the towns
facilities couldn't cope, because they can, but that would be a major
concern in many places

That is an issue. But look at the original Garden Cities, and the
post WWII New Towns. They have worked pretty well. And they coped
with London's overspill.

and look at all the shouting from the Nimbies when they proposed a dozen new
locations for the incorrectly names Ecotowns

The London Boroughs should be looking at densification around key
transit nodes with high rise developments for singles and empty
nesters.

High rises are the pits.

You think so?

Sure.

tim