Dr De Soto

The answer to this question is going to vary street by street and home by home, but based on all the evidence I've seen so far, yes, prices are going down. It's just that sellers don't want to believe it and estate agents don't want to lose customers by being pessimistic. There's no conspiracy (it's a free market!) but there's a lot of psychology at work. This is what's happened in a road near me: There are more houses/flats on the market than has been the case for years. 5 houses and 2 flats have been on the market over the last six months One of them went on at ?725kin October, and after two months was reduced to ?699. It didn't sell and was taken off the market.Another went on at outrageously optimistic ?650k, didn't sell and is now rented. Three more are for sale in the range ?550-?650, two of them since the start of January. As I understand people aren't viewing let alone making offers. Despite all these 'prices', no house has ever sold on this road for more than ?500. One flat went on for ?275 in October. It has finally sold for ?240-odd. Another hasn't sold. So that's 7 properties I know about, only one sold and that was at over 10% off the original asking price (set at the very peak of the market). It doesn't mean prices have dropped by 10% (yet), because buyers almost always knock a bit off the listed price, but all the evidence is that the trend is downwards. It may take months or years to settle down. It was exactly like this in the early 1990s across London. However, this is only a BAD thing if: (a) you have minimal equity in your property and you need to move, or... (b) you are planning to trade down to somewhere smaller to use the equity as a pension, or.... © you are a buy-to-let investor (though even a 10% drop in property prices isn't as bad as what's already happened to the stock market). For everyone else (I suspect the majority of people in East Dulwich) IT DOESN'T MATTER! For those wanting to buy for the first time IT IS GOOD NEWS.

According to a recent report by Childwise, 80% of 5-16 year olds in the UK have a television in their bedroom (the ratio for 6 year olds is over 50%). Part of the reason given is a shortage of things to do locally, or fear of letting children go outside to play. This figure seems to have been creeping up over the years, to the point where it is presumably regarded by the vast majority as perfectly normal, maybe even necessary, for your child to have their own TV. As a society, I'm surprised we aren't more shocked at this. If you grew up in the 1970s or earlier, it's unikely you had your own TV because (a)they were too expensive, and (b)your parents/grandparents would have been appalled at the thought of children watching TV unsupervised. It doesn't seem to be a class thing, since our figures are much higher than in France/Germany. In one report it said 3 times as many children in the UK have TVs compared to European counterparts. It's up to every parent to decide what they think is best for their children, but if every other home in East Dulwich has TV's in the kids' bedrooms, our own children might begin to feel 'deprived'. Is anyone else as shocked/depressed by this creeping trend as me?

.

We did a house swap with friends from the North East last year. They had a week long holiday in East Dulwich and enjoyed it so much they want to come back!

And how about that EDF Scrabble Game somebody spotted in November? I N D E P E N D A N T .......E....................E C A F E N E R O.....I .......I...........A........G .......N...........Y........H .......A...........L........B .......T........M O X T O N S .......E...........N........R ..............................H ..............................O ..............................O ..............................D

The other day was waiting for bus on LL, needed to get to Denmark Hill station on time, saw a guy hailing a cab and asked if I could share. Not only was he happy to do so, he turned out to be an occasional Forum reader, we had a nice chat for 5 minutes. So I agree about the community bit.

Frisco Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Or so they have been saying for the last 15 > years. " > > I thought it was more like five years. I was maybe exaggerating a little, but it goes back to the 1990s I think. I went to an (angry) public meeting about it at Thomas More hall attended by Tessa J. and that must have been seven years ago.

On reflection I agree that a fine is the best punishment in this instance. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to get away with it scot free.

Have to agree this would be the perfect site for an East Dulwich secondary school. But it will never happen: either they'll keep it for general NHS-related use, or (more likely I think) they'll flog it off for housing.

> A new community hospital is to be built on the > site, together with other local health facilities. Or so they have been saying for the last 15 years. They don't think they will need all of the land taken up by the existing hospital (plus large pile of rubble), and there has been a long-standing dispute about what to do with the rest of the land: key worker housing? a school? or luxury executive apartments?