Trying to buy a house in this area is near impossible

[Jeremy]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's the incentive for house-builders to build

> hundreds of thousands of houses that are needed?

Why can't the government take responsibility for such an initiative?

If they can intervene in the financial markets, I'm sure they can intervene in the housing market.

[miga]

.

[Otta]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before (can't be doing with reading every post anymore) but surely national rent regulations (with a London / big city premium) would go a long way to helping.

If landlords couldn't be toi greedy it would reduce BTL, and if rents weren't higher than mortgages people wouldn't be so desperate to buy.

[????]

Yup, everyones from the lefts being banging on about THAT. If we look back at when we had that before (rent control) from before= no investement in private stock, swathes of cheap slumlike horrible condition and er Rachman....lefties love it though as the assumption is always that private BTL lanlords are always scumbags who dion't care about their property etc et c etc

If we bring back rent controls without a massive investment in social housing as an alternative, we'll end up with a dteriotaing private renting stock increasingly in the hands of a new generation of Racchmans

..brilliant solution!

[????]

Ps What's got us into this mess is draconian planning laws (the state) and ironically, tory politicians trying to stoke pre-election booms (the state)..... not the market

[Zebedee Tring]

????, I think you will find that Rachmanism exploded AFTER rent control were abolished in c.1957. What ended Rachmanism in the 60s was the reimposition of rent controls in c. 1965 and massive investment in social housing, (not to mention a Race Relations Act that criminalised the "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" type of lettings). It's only the political will that stops this happening again.

[DaveR]

"Market solutions? Is that not what's got us into this mess?

What's the incentive for house-builders to build hundreds of thousands of houses that are needed? It would drive prices down as the come onto the market making them less profit.

I don't think the "market" is in the business of solving issues based on need. Merely on what makes money.

Access to shelter shouldn't be left to markets. It's too important. And is clearly failing currently."

Ah yes - some things are too important to be provided by individuals - it has to be done by the state. That's been tried before, in China and the Eastern Bloc, and is still in progress in Cuba and Venezuela. Let's just say it hasn't gone so well.

House builders build, and will build as much as they can, given the opportunity. When land with planning permission is scarce, it's expensive, and consequently even if the prices for houses are high, margins aren't. If land is made available it will get developed - that's why the big builders are constantly lobbying to get planning rules eased. Obviously they'd prefer to throw up massive new estates all over the green belt, but tbh they'll build wherever they can.

[StraferJack]

Did someone just suggest that the sort of actions taken by British governments throughout the 20th century (post war housing programme for example) is somehow comparable to the extreme

States of China and Korea?

I think someone just did

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yup, everyones from the lefts being banging on

> about THAT. If we look back at when we had that

> before (rent control) from before= no investement

> in private stock, swathes of cheap slumlike

> horrible condition and er Rachman....lefties love

> it though as the assumption is always that private

> BTL lanlords are always scumbags who dion't care

> about their property etc et c etc

>

> If we bring back rent controls without a massive

> investment in social housing as an alternative,

> we'll end up with a dteriotaing private renting

> stock increasingly in the hands of a new

> generation of Racchmans

>

> ..brilliant solution!

I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch, but surely it could be done... well... a bit differently?

And of course not every private landlord is a greedy scumbag, but plenty of them are quite frankly. And to be honest, if I had a spare house I'd get as much as I could for it. That doesn't make it right, and perhaps someone needs to say "actually, this is what is fair for that prop[erty, and this is what you can have". It's not like I'm suggesting rents go down really low, but frankly people shouldn't be paying more than ?1500 rent a month for a 3 bed house whatever area it's in.

[LondonMix]

PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd say 70-80k is probably more realistic Zebedee,

> and that's joint income. I don't know of anyone in

> ED on a joint income of 150k.

People buying houses in the last 12 months okoume be buying with a joint income of circa 150k. And yes I know some who do earn that much. Of course that isn't average adjust people have lived here longer than that and many live if flats rather than houses.

[PokerTime]

Lots of points?

In reply to Penguin's issue with mansion tax, there could be exemptions in certain cases, or any tax could be linked to a range of things. There are as I argued other alternatives to liquidation. Assets can be used to raise cash in many ways. But for the record, I am not a huge supporter of ?mansion tax?. I think it is fraught with complications. I would be more persuaded by an empty property tax, or second property tax. I do though also have support for the idea of CGT on sale profit. The key there would be in getting the percentage right.

I also agree with the sentiment that many people (even those just looking to buy a home) are obsessed with investment. That?s why we have terms like property ?ladder?. It?s also why people will buy anything to just get on it.

I wholeheartedly agree Zebedee, that a form of land tax would raise healthy amounts of tax and it is looking likely to be one of the major conclusions of the project I?m researching for. There is a problem though in that there are sizeable chunks of the land where the owner is unknown or not registered. Researching the fine detail of who owns what (to arrive at a place of reliable hard data) has been the most challenging area to research.

Balckcurrant is spot on with the consequences in this post?

?? there has been a massive transfer of wealth to older generations via the house price boom and subsequent measures taken to arrest and reverse the correction that began in 2007/8. People who own property, especially in London, have received a vast unearned windfall, and the younger generation now has to pay for it by borrowing large amounts and working for life time to pay down debt.?..?

The argument is often made about the baby boom generation, and how they?ve had the best of everything. There is great merit in that argument. One persons wealth can only happen at the expense of many others. That?s how capitalism works.

Dave C has made some excellent points imo?

?Market solutions? Is that not what's got us into this mess? ?..?

Whilst all of this is true, we have had precedents where private housing appreciates over the long term at sensible rates, parallel to plentiful affordable rents and accommodation. What was different then? Regulation and a direct will by government and social planners to make sure things were balanced as far as possible for the greater good of all society. It?s not necessary to destroy a private market to achieve this. It never has been.

Just to come full circle DaveR?.there is plenty of land suitable for development, if that?s the route we want to take. The problem is that most of it is privately owned. The Crown owns around a third of it alone!!! It?s not necessary to build on municipal land or green belts. We just need to look at sensible ways of land reform.

[PokerTime]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Did someone just suggest that the sort of actions

> taken by British governments throughout the 20th

> century (post war housing programme for example)

> is somehow comparable to the extreme

> States of China and Korea?

>

> I think someone just did

I chose to ignore that comparison SJ.....it's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read about housing.

[????]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yup, everyones from the lefts being banging on

> > about THAT. If we look back at when we had that

> > before (rent control) from before= no

> investement

> > in private stock, swathes of cheap slumlike

> > horrible condition and er Rachman....lefties

> love

> > it though as the assumption is always that

> private

> > BTL lanlords are always scumbags who dion't

> care

> > about their property etc et c etc

> >

> > If we bring back rent controls without a

> massive

> > investment in social housing as an alternative,

> > we'll end up with a dteriotaing private renting

> > stock increasingly in the hands of a new

> > generation of Racchmans

> >

> > ..brilliant solution!

>

>

> I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch, but

> surely it could be done... well... a bit

> differently?

>

> And of course not every private landlord is a

> greedy scumbag, but plenty of them are quite

> frankly. And to be honest, if I had a spare house

> I'd get as much as I could for it. That doesn't

> make it right, and perhaps someone needs to say

> "actually, this is what is fair for that

> prop[erty, and this is what you can have". It's

> not like I'm suggesting rents go down really low,

> but frankly people shouldn't be paying more than

> ?1500 rent a month for a 3 bed house whatever area

> it's in.

Graet. Agreed , I'm moving to a 3 bedder in Chelsea pronto for ?1500 a month. Come on FFS.

What annotys me are just the general assumptions -

renting of the state is great in terms of product and services (cloud cukoo) - I accept it's often cheaper

if not renting off a corporation is ok as above??mmm

But somehow

Renting off a private individual living in their gaff, which is probably a significant assett for them, = scumbags, poor service, no investments in repairs/maintenance etc etc. Crappy appliances/furniture etc

Yup all makes sense

Except intuitevly it doesn'T and in my small sample experience (so not science) I can tell you who was by far the shittiest landlord...er, the state. And, people I know who have BTL look after them (it makes no-sense not to)and most are pretty ameniable to their tenats

It's just that in the mish-mash of whiny leftism an indivudual owning a second property or a third is somehow an immoral robber baron of modern capitalism whereas of course the state or mass, corportae lanlords, like say German Banks are fine

To be absoloutely clear I own my gaff and it's my home and I have no BTL. I'm just sticking up for those that do, they are a long way down the list of whose fault it is why we are where we are a long way...

[aileking]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> Have you got a source for this information please,

> EDmummy?

You can just put ?1,000,000 as minimum price in Zoopla and search SE22. When I just searched, there were 40 houses over ?1 million (out of 73 houses in total, so 55% of houses on the market in SE22 today are over ?1 million). There's a total of 165 properties (houses + flats) in SE22 on the market just now, making nearly a quarter of them on for ?1 million or more.

[StraferJack]

"What annotys me are just the general assumptions -

renting of the state is great in terms of product and services (cloud cukoo) "

That is hugely and wilfully misrepresenting what most people are saying

There is nothing objectively wrong with owning more than one property. What people are mostly picking up on is that the balance has become way off beam compared with history

[worldwiser]

Imposing a ?1500 per month max on rents would be about the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. I bet that the average for every rental property inside the M25 would be more than that. Just wait for the black market to explode not to mention sky-high rates of illegal subletting.

[PokerTime]

That's wny rent caps have to about limiting annual rates of increase, not put a ceiling on a one size fits all rent.

????, you keep banging on about leftism! What are you talking about? This has been a very good, interesting and eloquent debate about some very real issues, with a variety of viewpoints (all valid) and a general consensus on the difficulties of finding workable solutions. All you seem to have contributed is some rage driven dismissal of any criticism of the market as leftist nonsense! Incredible....

[motorbird83]

I'm curious what are the most significant factors preventing the supply of new homes in London?

Supply for sale of existing stock is reducing for demographic reasons- people living longer, less people wanting to move out of London when they have kids etc which means the number of homes for sale is quite low despite the uptick in demand.

In these circumstances one would anticipate house building to increase but London's house building isn't keeping a pace with population growth in the city.

For those more familiar with the issues, what specifically in planning law, land distribution, funding, etc is causing this situation?

[DaveR]

SJ now says:

"There is nothing objectively wrong with owning more than one property"

SJ on page 30:

"Wanting to own your own property is natural

Wanting to own more than one? Slippage"

and

"It's not quite looting. But it's not so far off"

My comment about China was a specific response to this:

"Access to shelter shouldn't be left to markets"

Note - we're not talking about houses anymore - we're talking about 'shelter'. Something touchy feely and human rightsy. This kind of precious nonsense needs to be ridiculed for the undergraduate balls that it is.

[miga]

.

[StraferJack]

Nothing contradictory about my first two statements. Slippage is just that. Not a state of emergency

Looting refers to the situation overall rather than the individual level

Again it's about balance. The balance has massively tipped towards the already owners who are leveraging the massive annual unearned income to purchase the other properties

Generations are being left behind. And you can't see it

Undergraduate nonsense? Matter of opinion

Definitely not complacent tho

[Otta]

worldwiser Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Imposing a ?1500 per month max on rents would be

> about the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. I

> bet that the average for every rental property

> inside the M25 would be more than that. Just wait

> for the black market to explode not to mention

> sky-high rates of illegal subletting.

Yeah okay, so not particularly well thought out on my part, but my general point was that doing something to regulate the private rental market would be useful.

I don't know enough to really have the solutions neither do I pretend to.

Unlike several on here.

Edit to change a do to a don't.

[miga]

.

[PokerTime]

Where to start in answering that motorbird......I could write a whole thesis!

Your question is specifically about lack of new homes, but I think that has to be considered in two ways. Lack of available housing stock for those who want to by (so demand outstripping supply) and lack of affordable housing (which also is subject to a demand/supply factor) and the problems that lead from that.

The most significant factor imo is the lack of foresight by planners and regulators and government in keeping up with London's ever evolving economy. It's a sign of the success of the city that it's population has grown century upon century. Good town planning understands that vibrant economies need good infrastructure, and a labour force that is within easy reach. Housing of course is a major requirement for finding that labour force.

So what has happened in London specifically over the last 30 years to bring us here? Foreign investment and super bonuses have fuelled a luxury appartment construction boom. A high percentage of new property built in London has been to serve this market. This has been at the expense of family residential homes and social housing. In order to pursuade contruction companies to build family homes sucessive governments have had to offer sweeteners to incentivise those types of development, but they haven't built enough.

Right to buy has depleted affordable social housing stock, which has not been replaced at all.

And the demographics of people have changed. More people are single, live alone, and we all live longer. Construction hasn't taken any of that into account.

Planning issues are a whole other kettle of fish. Planning is decided borough by borough. Central funding for housing development has been dimished, especially by this coalition. And funding out there is aimed primarily at housing associations over LAs, but they can't build anything like the number of homes needed. Huge redevelopments likes Heygate take a decade or more to happen, and that development almost collapsed too.

The only organisations that could actually build the number and type of homes needed are private construction companies. Being businesses they are in operation to make profit. Government and LAs can (and do) write percentages of affordable housing into planning deals, but it's a long process of negotiation, and not one that is every going to see the number of, or right type of affordable homes being build for example.

We have a super hot, free market, with plenty of buyers willing to pay top of the range property prices. That's where it starts, and everything follows from there.

[PokerTime]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When you see an overly complex system where everyone has had a go at "fixing" it by taking

> drastic action, surely the common sense approach is to stop taking drastic actions, sure it up and

> start fixing small, measurable, reversible things around the edges? For example, remove the most

> recent drastic action (help to buy) from the mix.

This is absolutely my view too. Workable solutions are going to be longer term - a gradual reduction of the 'heat' in the market. Obviously that won't solve anything overnight, but there is no way to solve anything overnight without doing great harm to those heavily invested in it all. Even house building is not a quick fix. That in itself takes time. We have to be completely sensible and fair in finding workable solutions.