Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
letting agents and landlords are rubbing their hands with glee, no doubt.
if people lived 7 to a house with their parents and grandparents like in the good old days, instead of living alone and dying solitary, documentary-inspiring, deaths, we wouldn't have this problem.
Glad there's a quick and easy way to fix this mess. I've stopped worrying now.
your country is a better place to live than their homeland.
The answer is 3%, by the way, and there is enough brownfield land, and enough housing developer-owned land with planning permission already granted, for 1.5million homes to be built.
The problem is that the lack of tax on land value, the lack of proper taxation on rental revenues and the most landlord-friendly tenancy laws in western Europe means that the market wants to build houses in places, and for people, that are not economically, environmentally or demographically sustainable.
Something is seriously wrong when we got to a situation where some cities saw 80% of new accommodation being bought by people who already own a home, and of those, 60% would be left empty as an investment.
Local authorities used to have the power to force landlords to fill their empty properties. One of the first things that this coalition did was to remove those powers.
...let's pretend you're Minister for Housing
what's your [x] point plan?
- Tax on land value increases
- No council tax reduction for second homes
- Allow local authorities to repossess properties that have been left empty for a year
- Investment in construction of new council/housing association housing
- Tenancy laws to be more equitable (following the model seen in places like Germany and Holland).
- National targets/strategy imposed on local authorities for new housing/industrial/business development. Local authorities to include these within their Local Plans in return for central government investment in infrastructure.
- Mandatory percentage of all new developments to be affordable/subsidised homes.
- City bonuses to be paid in company shares, tied for five years and performance-based.
- State pension to be raised so that property isn’t the only way for people to provide for themselves.
- Separate consumer banking from investment banking. Allow investment banks to fail if they run into difficulties. Consumer banks to be restricted in terms of their lending/capital asset ratios.
And for good measure:
- Regulation/formal qualification for estate agents.
- Ban the property supplements in newspapers.
I think a 200% tax on empty property would be better in helping keep the rental prices down and properties in use
To keep mercenary short term buy-to-let landlords at bay.
or the estate agents listings themselves?
I can guarantee if you got rid of property advertising, every single local paper in the country would close.
I’d also like to ban Location, Location, Location and Place In The Country.
in Belgium you have to study for three years to become an estate agent, and we have similarly good renting laws as in The Netherlands or Germany.
and so disagree that it should come under the category of 'joke options' at the end, I suppose.
I thought I'd put the estate agent thing in the top half.
I should really read my own posts sometimes.
I meant to say 'I don't think requiring a formal qualification would be all that BAD'
Not saying you're wrong, but that's an interesting stat and it would be useful to have the source to help argue against all the nimbys.
*there will always be more people that want to live in London than can cheaply fit
*there will always be poor people in developing countries that want to live in the UK because their own country has been fucked over by the UK (and other developing countries)
*one of three things: either more houses or less people or a proper policy on distribution of wealth/power
First up, the grammar...
"there's not enough houses"
*there AREN'T enough houses
"having less people."
*having FEWER people.
Moving on to the bullshit bingo...
"sticking plaster"... "Chinese-style birth control"... BINGO!
And finally, the straight up nonsense
"...the UK (given its small size, which will never change)..."
Ah, those permanent, unwavering, completely natural borders of the UK, stretching back, oooh, about 60 years or so to the last major revision.
we need to invade somewhere, right? Right.
The UK should've bought Ireland outright when it was bankrupt/going cheap the other year.
If we weren't an island nation we could expand our borders at will.
What I'd give for a little lebensraum...
Yup. This thread just got even worse.
Don't worry someone will bite I'm sure.
But I'm ill-qualified to get involved in the clusterfuck that should ensue if that spot of provocation gets bitten into and spirals out of control. I'll be the one watching from the sidelines for that particular subthread.
Or a collection of nations on an island, depending on your viewpoint.
What's not dependent on your viewpoint, is the simple fact that Scotland has very different immigration needs to England (which itself has regional variations in need).
Many fewer people being able to get mortages increasing those who need to rent, plus a situation where there was already a chronic shortages, plus an increase in te number of empty 'holiday homes' in rural areas.
God I sound like Theo.
but as we know if something is happening in London then the rest of the country is brought to its collective flat cap wearing, coal mining, pie eating knees
If you had enough passion for your career then you, too, could comfortable live in London.
What's Leyton like as an area? My little sister is going to buy a house and you can get 2/3-bed terraces in Leyton for £250k which doesn't seem too bad for somewhere 4 stops from real London.
very good for getting to big supermarkets etc (huge ASDA by the station, and 5 minutes on the bus to the Stratford Westfield)
she would have to travel pretty much *everywhere* for her entertainment though.
I imagine it would be a pretty wise place to buy, either way - the prices are krazycheep for somewhere so (relatively) central, and I can't see that lasting forever.
Sounds pretty good. It might actually be for me to live in and I'm way less fussy than her. She's so snooty.
(I don't mean that in a negative way - I don't mind the area, but just wouldn't choose to live there)...
if she's younger than you, then shirley things like having a garden/being close to good schools and so on aren't going to be her top priorities...?
in which case, with a budget of £250k, she could buy a pretty nice 1 or 2 bed flat in a slightly more uh, 'hip and happening' area.
so yeah, it depends on what she wants from where she lives, and how prepared she is to live somewhere relatively boring with the hopes of it turning into a good investment.
and it’s surprisingly cheap. In fact, it was found to be the best value place to live in London in terms of cost/travel time into the City/West End. There are a lot of Victorian terraces there, but a larger than average number of these are owned by private landlords, with a high turnover of tenants.
There isn’t much to do in Leyton, but it’s very easy to get to places that have. Personally, I prefer Leytonstone. It’s two minutes further out on the tube and a little more expensive, but the High Road has some decent shops, restaurants, cafes and pub or two. If you’re buying there, then somewhere around Whipps Cross hospital is a decent bet.