Never mind in London, who can in a city anywhere?
Housing market
- Thread starter matt j
- Start date
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
I have just received my voting papers for the local development plans. Looking forward to 2037 there are tens of thousands of houses and villages to urbanised in this locality.
I find it somewhat bizarre that the current population is being asked to endorse this. What benefit is there to being surrounded by fields of houses.
I can understand the council relishing the huge boost in council tax collection.
But beyond that there is no perceivable benefit to the indigenous population.
A bit like asking the American Indians if they wanted their lands concreted over for shopping malls.
I find it somewhat bizarre that the current population is being asked to endorse this. What benefit is there to being surrounded by fields of houses.
I can understand the council relishing the huge boost in council tax collection.
But beyond that there is no perceivable benefit to the indigenous population.
A bit like asking the American Indians if they wanted their lands concreted over for shopping malls.
Other than the obvious "having somewhere to live" aspect.
Yours is a NIMBY attitude. You live in a nice part of the world, you don't want a sea of other houses around you. Reasonable enough, but if we all want extra housing we can't also ask for it to be built "everywhere other than around me". It's the old line trotted out by Conservative Councillors in every ward: "We will build new homes, concentrating on giving permission to build in brownfield sites". Well, bloody obviously. We all like that. What we don't like is the lack of availability of said sites and the cost of demolition and remediation before we start building our new homes.
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
Thames Water are doing their best to provide more brownfield sites.
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
I think you are missing my point.
As much as I might love to be surrounded by new houses, how do you expect people to actually vote for it?
I shall be interested in the results.
Mike Reed
pfm Member
Interesting as I've never been consulted, let alone asked to vote, although in fairness the huge Dussindale complex close by had already been started when we moved here. 2037 is hard to visualise, let alone make decisions on that timescale. Think they ought to incorporate cemeteries in some of these big estates 'cos you could die waiting for those houses !
Steve mentioned NIMBY, but I lean towards being a BANANA (build anything near anywhere not adjacent)
If you think I'm missing your point, then I suggest that you clarify it. Because it looks at the moment like "I don't want these new houses to be built near me", when we all know that there is a housing crisis in any part of the UK where there is work and people want to live, and everybody is screaming out for houses to be built. Just not near you, though, it seems.
How might they vote for it? In order to have somewhere to live, perhaps.
You and me both.
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
I see what you've done there Mike.
A bit of positive spin is a welcome addition to the debate.
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
The question being asked for me to vote on is whether I agree with the development plan.
It's like asking whether you like woods and fields.
Or do you like housing estates.
I like woods and fields. But I also need a place to live. I can't live in a wood, for that I need a house. So do the other 65 million of us on this island.
Minio
Kind of Sort of Not really...
RICHARD1111
pfm Member
What frustrates me is when I see a house pop up for sale 12 months after it was bought for 20% mark up. Most of the time the owners have done nothing to the house.
Yes you would an absolute idiot to sell your big house and there must be millions like you. So you will sit in it as it is going up in value but one day you and your better half will die and your kids will inherit it. End result is one extra house that was tied up for years is now released onto the market. Your death is just the same as building one house but the chances are a family of say 4 or 5 people will occupy the house. That will also filter downwards.
We are not a few oldies, there are millions of us and the combined effect of putting more money into the hands of the younger generation whist freeing up previously occupied property for them to occupy will put a reasonable downward pressure on house prices.
However the best thing is to build more houses in vast numbers because too many young people are living in cramped conditions which one does expect them to do.
mandryka
pfm Member
One reason for selling your big house -- apart from the cost of maintaining it -- is that it makes you a tax free pile of money, which you can then give to your children and others as a gift if you want, a tax free gift if you live for 7 years. You could of course also invest the money for your own income.
Old people I know all tell me that it's a very bad idea to keep your big house until you can no longer manage it. Until you can no longer climb the stairs easily, do the garden easily. Until keeping it all spick and span is a real pain for you. They all say get out before these things happen, because chances are they will happen if you live, and the older and more infirm you are, the harder the move is.
I look round my house and wonder about this often. I hate where I live, not the house but the rather staid middle class family oriented neighbourhood. But I'm tied here for business reasons, my business is in walking distance. When I sell the business, in 10 years I guess if all goes to plan, I'll move somewhere more agreeable -- a nice little flat on Berwick Street maybe.
Old people I know all tell me that it's a very bad idea to keep your big house until you can no longer manage it. Until you can no longer climb the stairs easily, do the garden easily. Until keeping it all spick and span is a real pain for you. They all say get out before these things happen, because chances are they will happen if you live, and the older and more infirm you are, the harder the move is.
I look round my house and wonder about this often. I hate where I live, not the house but the rather staid middle class family oriented neighbourhood. But I'm tied here for business reasons, my business is in walking distance. When I sell the business, in 10 years I guess if all goes to plan, I'll move somewhere more agreeable -- a nice little flat on Berwick Street maybe.
Yes we all agree sitting in a big house makes you an easy pile of tax free cash, yum yum and all that. However lots of boomers hire gardeners and tradesmen to help keep the place decent and even those who can't prefer a bit of a run down house because of the emotional attachment.
You are never going to persuade old people to sell their big house, so let's get building new ones like buggery.
Downsizing is equally bad because I know a chap who sold his B&B business and bought a little flat and has a pile of cash to witter away. However he has no room to store his bike and had to borrow a hammer to hang a picture on the wall because he has no room to store any tools.
Or maybe as pensions dwindle ever further and people become more stretched and unable to allocate enough into one, those kids will choose to keep the house and rent it out using the rent to help fund retirement. In which case we're no better off because rents only ever go up.
I think an equivalent of the Triple Lock will continue because people of my age forced it to happen in 2010 and your age bracket will force future governments to keep it in order to maintain decent pensions. Any government who kills it off will suffer at the polls.
As regards to your other point, you will find that renting is hassle, you get clobbered for tax and new laws are a pain in the arse to administer. Most kids will sell the place as it helps them to move forward and will do whatever they want with the cash. Either way, when a boomer dies, another empty house is available to someone.