Big J on radio 4..

[Big J]

8 minutes ago, LeeGray said:

Much more reasonable and would certainly help ease the housing problem in the uk but it would take more than the council. Just putting services in would cost more than that in the uk for rural or semi rural plots. The network owners would have to have a bit of pressure put on them to get infrastructure at reasonable rates, which would increase costs for all bill payers, as we know the fat cats won’t take a cut in divies and the market needs good returns on investment.

I guess you'd have to cluster new builds so that it brings down the overall costs. If plots were developed cooperatively, between say half a dozen families, then many of the costs go down. 

 

I'd love to see a situation where new house building isn't seen as a bad thing, but rather something that is welcomed. I'm not just talking about adding the housing stock in order to increase overall capacity, but as a direct replacement for many of our older, environmentally awful houses. When you compare an intelligently designed and carefully constructed new build (that requires a medium sized candle to heat it) to a draughty old cottage where a constantly burning fire is never quite enough, a strong case is made for replacement. That's another topic entirely though!

[AHPP]

The ultimate frustration is that the construction cost of a house and barns like that (but far better built) is less than half of the asking price, and 3 acres of not entirely flat pasture is only about £20k around here. 
 
My point is that the massive inflation in the property market over the past 25 years has been on the basis of lower and lower interest rates, which have artificially inflated the price of property without there being an actual increase in the material value of the houses in question.

We’ve discussed this before and I’m aware you mention it in another post in this thread but it’s worth pointing out again that the bigger issue is planning. People are prima facie forbidden to do what they want on their land. Morally repugnant to start with but also the main cause of absurd property prices. If you do get planning paperwork (through grovelling and bribery usually), you make money. If you don’t, you lose money to those who can.

“Oh but if anybody could build what they wanted where they wanted there’d be hotels and cinemas in every field.”

Bollocks there would be. Why go to the cost of building so speculatively when anyone else can do it and compete with you. The right amount of stuff would get built. What people want, what people can afford and what people are constrained to by fair competition.

The government needs to get the get the fuck out of the way and let people live.

[AHPP]

As above, I agree it’s mad. Something like avg house price 11 times avg wage. Yet people still pay it, I honestly don’t know where the cash comes from. Lots of 500k plus new build in the village yet most folk are on very avg wages. Starter homes for 200k!

Banks lend to people who won’t pay it back. It doesn’t matter how much it is. They just want the right to later take the houses. People don’t pay and the banks take the houses. Banks go bust with loads of houses because nobody’s paying any mortgages. Banks get bailed out by the taxpayer. Banks sell the houses and have loads of money again. Cycle repeats. The back and forth of money is irrelevant really. What it boils down to is people working and the banks getting the rewards.

As to where the cash comes from, it’s literally out of thin air. Since we don’t have a gold or other real standard that money has to be tied to, banks can lend money that doesn’t exist. But when you pay it back to the bank, it does exist. The bank makes money out of thin air. Clever isn’t it.

Watch the film, The Big Short. Once you get it, you’ll get how the 2008 crash worked. I had to watch it about ten times before I understood what happened and the nuances but I now understand a lot more about money etc.

[difflock]

Most of our moderate financial success in life, was due to NOT being in the thrall of the money lenders, for cloths, consumer electronics, furniture, cars or houses.

We were and continue to be shocked by the sums most people pay in interest, for their, mostly, unneeded consumer goods.

But, despite my aversion to credit, from about age 17, i.e. 43 years ago I ran a credit card(and 43 years later still with the same CC provider), to our advantage.

mth

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by difflock

[Paul in the woods]

I'm not convinced sweeping changes to planning would help many here. If you could build wherever you want then the price of land would rise dramatically. Those who can currently afford large expensive houses would probably then buy up the land. Those on lower incomes then wouldn't be able to afford the land. You may well be worse off as it would be likely food prices would rise etc.

 

Personally I wouldn't want people to whatever they liked. I'm happy to say I'm a NIMBY and I don't want a toxic tip built next door, an industrial unit working 24/7 or whatever.

 

Certainly there's lots in the system that needs changing. For example I don't understand why I have to build a workshop "in keeping with the local area" when a farm can build a huge concrete barn and floodlight it all night without any planning at all.

[Commando]

20 hours ago, Big J said:

Haha! Mentioning my wife being an architect was pertinent to the topic in question! 

 

Quite nerve racking to be honest, and I wonder how many folk have contributed to the programme over the years whilst sat in a forwarder.

 

What serves to reinforce my point (I feel) is that from my high vantage point in the valley, almost all the land I could see is owned by about 6 people, and provision for people like us trying to find rural property from which to run a business and in which to live is almost non existent. There is a nice enough 4 bed house over the hill with small outbuildings and 3 acres of land, but that's £650k. Loopy money!

Fook me! Not only do you complain about the roads in glorious Devon, now you want to turn it into a pseudo Zimbabwian state, grab the land and divide amongst the poor?? WTF ? As my old chap always said.."If you want it enough, you'll get off yer arse and earn it"!

[Big J]

1 hour ago, Commando said:

Fook me! Not only do you complain about the roads in glorious Devon, now you want to turn it into a pseudo Zimbabwian state, grab the land and divide amongst the poor?? WTF ? As my old chap always said.."If you want it enough, you'll get off yer arse and earn it"!

Yeah yeah! ?

 

I don't object (in principle) to some people owning a lot of land, but I object to none of that land being made available to people of lesser means. With more than 2.5 acres per man, woman and child in Devon, we're not short of the stuff. 

 

Nicola Sturgeon has often talked about land redistribution in Scotland (which has the most unequal land ownership in Europe, with fewer than 500 people owning half of all the land) and whilst I don't agree with land grabs, it's worth remembering that the ownership of the land is based on acquisition practices that would be regarded as abhorent now (the clearances, for example).

[AHPP]

6 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

If you could build wherever you want then the price of land would rise dramatically.

Assuming the rules of supply and demand suddenly reverse from how they've been forever.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

21 hours ago, Big J said:

Quite possibly, but no income to support it and miles from family and friends

You’d still be in the EU though ?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

19 hours ago, Big J said:

The climate makes for a much more pleasant lifestyle, with indirect benefits, in that I feel that people are more sociable

In comparison to Scotland??

 

The same could be said for North Korea!!  ???