hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826 
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 11:09:05 GMT
but what if the community objects to the community building houses? Buy the land. Yes, but as major builders have the financial muscle, they can speculate buy and bank land, also economics of scale, and selling at 'market' prices, pretty hard for a community group who want to build houses for their children to be able to buy and live locally to compete. Many of these communities that go NIMBY, are naturally Conservatives voters, instinctively pro capitalist, except they realise in a number of ways the free market fails the people, society and the enviroment. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 17, 2017 11:11:58 GMT
But the people moving to new "open market homes" will be vacating other homes which may well be suitable for the example of the family which you gave. If the housing market worked in the interests of everyone, then that would happen, but unfortunately the housing system works in favour of powerful vested interests, economics textbooks describe the workings of the perfect market, unfortunately real life and economics textbooks are very different. Of course it does, when you have useful idiots like you wanting to control the supply of housing as much as possible- it pushes the cost up and adds additional cost to particular bits of land that you have allowed to be used. Of course that's not the perfect market. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,979
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 17, 2017 11:27:41 GMT
Even I was not expecting this...but then again with such a close result in that ward in 2015, anything could have happened. Unexpected yes, but the local Greens realised that the seat could be won, and campaigned accordingly. It is worth noting that: a) There was no Independent candidate. b) None of the candidates lived in the ward. I suspect that if either of the above had been different, there would have been a different result. Although the Labour vote only went down slightly, they ought to be concerned at ceding second place to the Conservatives, which shows how much the Forest is moving away from Labour demographically. But an important result for us and we will now have group status here, and well placed for the county elections in May. Its actually up slightly according to other sources. And in this instance the Greens clearly took many votes that might otherwise have gone Labour, so I wouldn't draw too many wider conclusions from it. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 11:28:16 GMT
If the housing market worked in the interests of everyone, then that would happen, but unfortunately the housing system works in favour of powerful vested interests, economics textbooks describe the workings of the perfect market, unfortunately real life and economics textbooks are very different. Of course it does, when you have useful idiots like you wanting to control the supply of housing as much as possible- it pushes the cost up and adds additional cost to particular bits of land that you have allowed to be used. Of course that's not the perfect market. So we should scrap green belts, curtail planning discussions, we should allow development everywhere purely on free market terms, might I ask what happens in this hypothetical situation, you are looking out of your kitchen window over farmers fields, when you notice a placard 500 new homes to be built here. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Feb 17, 2017 11:35:19 GMT
[br Yes, this explains why councillors of all parties tend to routinely oppose all housing developments... It is easy to dismiss this as NIMBYism, and where all new housing is opposed it certainly is.. But it is also true that virtually all new proposals are developer led because most council planning departments do not have the resources to rationally allocate land to development. Hence the proposals reflect patterns of land ownership and greed rather than what is best for a community or district... I'm not sure it's an issue of planners not having resources - it isn't really their job. Or rather you can write planning documents suggesting such things, but all applications have to be entered individually and are almost bound to run into trouble from residents who don't want any more development. Extra social housing or private starter homes may well be in the best interest of the community but people will oppose them just the same. I guess I am influenced by recent experience in Kirklees, where in theory a local plan is being developed to avoid random development, but in practice there is a large target of new building and almost all the sites to accomplish this have been selected by developers, not the Planning Authority, who simply do not have the resources to identify and assess sites for tens of thousands of new houses. So what you get is massive overdevelopment in certain communities (adding 1000 houses to a community of 2000 houses for example) and no alternative sites that can be chosen after consultation.. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 17, 2017 11:35:40 GMT
Yes, but as major builders have the financial muscle, they can speculate buy and bank land, also economics of scale, and selling at 'market' prices, pretty hard for a community group who want to build houses for their children to be able to buy and live locally to compete. Many of these communities that go NIMBY, are naturally Conservatives voters, instinctively pro capitalist, except they realise in a number of ways the free market fails the people, society and the enviroment. No, they realise that new development may affect the value of their property and, in my experience, they have a particular objection to affordable/social housing because it may result in their social inferiors moving into the area. Snobbery is a bigger factor in NIMBYism than environmentalism. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 17, 2017 11:38:22 GMT
Yellowperil, I'm not sure the Lib Dems can be described as the establishment in Uttlesford. They only have 4 cllrs out of 39 (please see Middleenglander's report above). Just that others are more 'anti-establishment' Point taken, but they were in place as the target in this particular ward. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 17, 2017 11:38:23 GMT
Of course it does, when you have useful idiots like you wanting to control the supply of housing as much as possible- it pushes the cost up and adds additional cost to particular bits of land that you have allowed to be used. Of course that's not the perfect market. So we should scrap green belts, curtail planning discussions, we should allow development everywhere purely on free market terms, might I ask what happens in this hypothetical situation, you are looking out of your kitchen window over farmers fields, when you notice a placard 500 new homes to be built here. Much rather that than having a shortage of houses. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 17, 2017 11:48:20 GMT
But the people moving to new "open market homes" will be vacating other homes which may well be suitable for the example of the family which you gave. If the housing market worked in the interests of everyone, then that would happen, but unfortunately the housing system works in favour of powerful vested interests, economics textbooks describe the workings of the perfect market, unfortunately real life and economics textbooks are very different. However devised it could never work in the interests of everyone. At best it would be a majority with a significant minority opposed for a raft of quite valid reasons. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Feb 17, 2017 11:50:26 GMT
If the housing market worked in the interests of everyone, then that would happen, but unfortunately the housing system works in favour of powerful vested interests, economics textbooks describe the workings of the perfect market, unfortunately real life and economics textbooks are very different. However devised it could never work in the interests of everyone. At best it would be a majority with a significant minority opposed for a raft of quite valid reasons. Well, is the current system working for anyone? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Feb 17, 2017 11:55:51 GMT
However devised it could never work in the interests of everyone. At best it would be a majority with a significant minority opposed for a raft of quite valid reasons. Well, is the current system working for anyone? NOTHING will work for EVERYONE. That is my point. It can't. We want completely different outcomes. I don't even have the same wishes as I did at 50 let alone at 25! |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 17, 2017 11:57:14 GMT
Of course it does, when you have useful idiots like you wanting to control the supply of housing as much as possible- it pushes the cost up and adds additional cost to particular bits of land that you have allowed to be used. Of course that's not the perfect market. curtail planning discussions, we should allow development everywhere purely on free market terms, might I ask what happens in this hypothetical situation, you are looking out of your kitchen window over farmers fields, when you notice a placard 500 new homes to be built here. No. But no harm in reviewing them. Many have sat there for years without any real thought to their function. To give you an example. Part of the N Staffs GB reaches into Cheshire. It wasn't originally in the GB as designated, but was added "in the 1980s". But nobody can trace when exactly, or why exactly! So why is it GB? Another observation. I travelled the slow way to Windsor a couple of years ago (LSWR). It was striking to see the change in built/natural environment. Dense and grim for some miles, then gradually the housing becomes lower density, gardens appear - and gradually get bigger. Then ... the housing thins out and we are in the famed, treasured Green Belt. And it's horrible! Scrub, pony paddocks, car parks, patches of weedy trees ... So why not have a smaller, higher quality GB and release some of the scrub for housing? |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 17, 2017 11:58:53 GMT
However devised it could never work in the interests of everyone. At best it would be a majority with a significant minority opposed for a raft of quite valid reasons. Well, is the current system working for anyone? It keeps people employed in local government. Which, as far as I can see (including a couple of years working there) is the primary function of local government. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 12:03:20 GMT
So we should scrap green belts, curtail planning discussions, we should allow development everywhere purely on free market terms, might I ask what happens in this hypothetical situation, you are looking out of your kitchen window over farmers fields, when you notice a placard 500 new homes to be built here. Much rather that than having a shortage of houses. Free markets are as bad as socialist state planning, they both fail society and the planet. Do you think a housing free for all will solve our housing crisis, create genuinely affordable homes and stop bubbles and speculation. Its the banking system and the market that need root and branch change, we also need to look at issues affecting the market from the demand side, divorce and the number of people choosing to live alone being one driver amongst many, commuting areas etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 17, 2017 12:04:40 GMT
Much rather that than having a shortage of houses. Free markets are as bad as socialist state planning, they both fail society and the planet. Do you think a housing free for all will solve our housing crisis, create genuinely affordable homes and stop bubbles and speculation. Its the banking system and the market that need root and branch change, we also need to look at issues affecting the market from the demand side, divorce and the number of people choosing to live alone being one driver amongst many, commuting areas etc. Having more houses will mean we have more houses. Are you disputing that? |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 12:16:19 GMT
So we should scrap green belts, curtail planning discussions, we should allow development everywhere purely on free market terms, might I ask what happens in this hypothetical situation, you are looking out of your kitchen window over farmers fields, when you notice a placard 500 new homes to be built here. No. But no harm in reviewing them. Many have sat there for years without any real thought to their function. To give you an example. Part of the N Staffs GB reaches into Cheshire. It wasn't originally in the GB as designated, but was added "in the 1980s". But nobody can trace when exactly, or why exactly! So why is it GB? Another observation. I travelled the slow way to Windsor a couple of years ago (LSWR). It was striking to see the change in built/natural environment. Dense and grim for some miles, then gradually the housing becomes lower density, gardens appear - and gradually get bigger. Then ... the housing thins out and we are in the famed, treasured Green Belt. And it's horrible! Scrub, pony paddocks, car parks, patches of weedy trees ... So why not have a smaller, higher quality GB and release some of the scrub for housing? I agree many areas of Green Belt are pretty grotty and well planned developments could be an improvement, unfortunately once you set a precedent the dam walls can easily come tumbling down, the lawyers representing houses builders would be besieging planning departments. Planning needs to look at community need, not profit. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826
|
Post by hedgehog on Feb 17, 2017 12:20:12 GMT
Free markets are as bad as socialist state planning, they both fail society and the planet. Do you think a housing free for all will solve our housing crisis, create genuinely affordable homes and stop bubbles and speculation. Its the banking system and the market that need root and branch change, we also need to look at issues affecting the market from the demand side, divorce and the number of people choosing to live alone being one driver amongst many, commuting areas etc. Having more houses will mean we have more houses. Are you disputing that? More houses, more houses that a large proportion of society have no hope of buying, more second homes, more homes built not out of need but to produce dividends for shareholders. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 17, 2017 12:32:27 GMT
Having more houses will mean we have more houses. Are you disputing that? More houses, more houses that a large proportion of society have no hope of buying, more second homes, more homes built not out of need but to produce dividends for shareholders. If no one can afford to buy them, then no one will buy them. If no one will buy them, then no one will build them- or if they do and are then not sold, then the prices will come down. Of course, in your strange little world, lots of people will want to buy second homes in Hemel Hempstead and Baskingstoke... |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Feb 17, 2017 12:46:52 GMT
More houses, more houses that a large proportion of society have no hope of buying, more second homes, more homes built not out of need but to produce dividends for shareholders. If no one can afford to buy them, then no one will buy them. If no one will buy them, then no one will build them- or if they do and are then not sold, then the prices will come down. Of course, in your strange little world, lots of people will want to buy second homes in Hemel Hempstead and Baskingstoke... I think he means there is not enough affordable (in the sense of small and buyable by average people) housing, and too much housing built for the wealthy. That's happening for obvious reasons, it's much easier to do a larger profit on an upper-scale house. The big issue is than the builders are not building the mix that the society needs, but the mix that's making the most money (there is not enough housing being built, and instead of taking the needs and instead of saying "that's the mix of the demand, we can build 60% of it, let's build 60% of each element of the mix", builders do "well, let's cut the cheapest housing, we can do less money with it".) The issue is than every business does that every year, so there is tons of new upper-scale housing, but not much of the other levels. Even if there was enough housing built in the year, this wouldn't work, because every business thinks they are able to attract upper-scale customers. So, there would be too much upper-scale housing and not enough of the rest. In marketing terms, everyone is targeting the same segment and is neglecting the others, because of greed. Greed isn't popular, and if there is too much of it, it makes the market unpopular, and that's how illiberal forces gain traction. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Feb 17, 2017 13:22:49 GMT
No. But no harm in reviewing them. Many have sat there for years without any real thought to their function. To give you an example. Part of the N Staffs GB reaches into Cheshire. It wasn't originally in the GB as designated, but was added "in the 1980s". But nobody can trace when exactly, or why exactly! So why is it GB? Another observation. I travelled the slow way to Windsor a couple of years ago (LSWR). It was striking to see the change in built/natural environment. Dense and grim for some miles, then gradually the housing becomes lower density, gardens appear - and gradually get bigger. Then ... the housing thins out and we are in the famed, treasured Green Belt. And it's horrible! Scrub, pony paddocks, car parks, patches of weedy trees ... So why not have a smaller, higher quality GB and release some of the scrub for housing? I agree many areas of Green Belt are pretty grotty and well planned developments could be an improvement, unfortunately once you set a precedent the dam walls can easily come tumbling down, the lawyers representing houses builders would be besieging planning departments.Planning needs to look at community need, not profit. Really? Why? Green Belt boundaries can only be changed within Local Plan Reviews (every 10-15-20 years). So if land is released from the GB it sets no precedent for the land which remains in the GB. If anything it strengthens its protection because it has been subject to recent review. |
|
