Housing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye

That's short-sighted IMO - once you factor in infrastructure costs for the council, and whether those represented a net loss on the section 75s, then there's a risk to the council.

Perhaps more importantly, there is an opportunity cost. P&K spend at least £2m on out-of-area residential placements for looked after children. It's well-established and agreed by everybody that out-of-area leads to poor outcomes. It feels like the powers around CPOs being talked about may have given P&K the opportunity to save money and deliver better outcomes, if managed properly.

As for the rest of your post, I'm assuming the business owners already employed people before they moved into their new homes? So that's a moot point. Out of interest, was any affordable housing required?

---

Absolutely nothing you say is relevant for individual plots sold for self build which is how the plots were sold. This wasn't a developer building speculative housing. No public money was spent on infrastructure such as roads for infill building plots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Absolutely nothing you say is relevant for individual plots sold for self build which is how the plots were sold. This wasn't a developer building speculative housing. No public money was spent on infrastructure such as roads for infill building plots.

---

I know he didn't build the houses - you already said. The farmer monetised a land asset and drip-fed it to the market on the basis of its potential for building expensive homes. He didnt 'build' the land, he acquired it in some way, shape or form and let market forces increase its values. Which takes us back to the original point -he didn't exactly show enterprise here, but nevertheless if it is viable land for development, the council could CP it under the proposed legislation and put it to use that is good for a lot more. Let's face it, their finances are a matter of public record and something like this could be a much needed 'spend to save'.

Of course, there may be good reasons why it isn't suitable. Nevertheless, using CPOs that reflect land value rather than hope value is an effective and economic tool to help tackle the housing crisis. Labour are right to be putting it out there, even if it reduces windfall profits for property and land speculators.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...team=editorial

Another blow for housing. Hopefully the council change what they need to change and still follow through.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

So why can the council get planning permission and Murray can’t? It’s a massive conflict of interest seems as the council are the ones who grant it.

Refuse the developer, buy it from the the developer, gain planning? That would be scandalous.

A right to buy over certain plots or farmland would be fine.

For example, a landowner who could gain planning for 100-200 houses in a desirable area, but chooses not too. That would be a reasonable use of such powers.

---

If I was FM that is what I would do. I have no issue with being unfair on the face of it for the public good and CPOs are definitely for the Public Good when it comes to improving housing. I would only build state owned homes though and not seek to profit from land sales.

I would grab back all the land that the Duke of Buccleuch etc etc sold to developers that sits there waiting for the areas to be rich enough to make massive profits from. I'd then take the land he hasn't sold and give the least value possible to buy it back. Much of it was essentially "public" land to start with that was gifted to the rich by the English Crown.

I wish the government would do more on Land Reform. They did a good job to start off with but when Andy Wightman lost his seat it all went quiet. Some of the work he did could have been used to make laws which could really transform Scotland.

In terms of the money needed I reckon the Tram project would cost more than buying huge amounts of land and making it social housing with appropriate infrastructure. We could afford that and the Queensferry Crossing so money is available for massive projects that are worthwhile and benefit huge numbers of citizens. Not sure over priced private housing that dilutes an already under resourced infrastructure benefits anyone particularly if profits end up in the Cayman Islands

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

If I was FM that is what I would do. I have no issue with being unfair on the face of it for the public good and CPOs are definitely for the Public Good when it comes to improving housing. I would only build state owned homes though and not seek to profit from land sales.

I would grab back all the land that the Duke of Buccleuch etc etc sold to developers that sits there waiting for the areas to be rich enough to make massive profits from. I'd then take the land he hasn't sold and give the least value possible to buy it back. Much of it was essentially "public" land to start with that was gifted to the rich by the English Crown.

I wish the government would do more on Land Reform. They did a good job to start off with but when Andy Wightman lost his seat it all went quiet. Some of the work he did could have been used to make laws which could really transform Scotland.

In terms of the money needed I reckon the Tram project would cost more than buying huge amounts of land and making it social housing with appropriate infrastructure. We could afford that and the Queensferry Crossing so money is available for massive projects that are worthwhile and benefit huge numbers of citizens. Not sure over priced private housing that dilutes an already under resourced infrastructure benefits anyone particularly if profits end up in the Cayman Islands

---

The SG has land reform proposal going through consultation just now but I think there is zero chance it gets past Alistair Jack so I would get your hopes up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...slater-4178611

This is stupidity from Slater as rents in Scotland are rising faster than rest of UK since she introduced it. At the very least, before going back to parliament to seek an extension, she should be commissioning a study to see what effect the policy has had so far.
This hurts young people and those who change tenancy regularly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Housing market in for further shocks. Everything that happened under Truss has now happened again under Sunak, just took a bit longer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-..._medium=social

I honestly think we are heading for biggest crash since early 90’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-..._medium=social

I honestly think we are heading for biggest crash since early 90’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

It's inevitable, the only question is how high the waves are going to be and how far they extend beyond the shore.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas...=1000617293829

Large bit in today’s podcast about housing. They are talking about 30% house price falls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am mortgage free and my next house is likely to be similar or slightly less in value. I want a crash and this time I want mortgage holders bailed put. Lower housing costs are a plus as far as I can see

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

I am mortgage free and my next house is likely to be similar or slightly less in value. I want a crash and this time I want mortgage holders bailed put. Lower housing costs are a plus as far as I can see

---

Mortgage holders won’t be bailed out. The banks might be but not ordinary people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

I am mortgage free and my next house is likely to be similar or slightly less in value. I want a crash and this time I want mortgage holders bailed put. Lower housing costs are a plus as far as I can see

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Mortgage holders won’t be bailed out. The banks might be but not ordinary people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Lower housing costs are a plus if you’re buying, but could see plenty people crushed under negative equity, your want will see thousands put into misery, and possibly lose their home.

as Ozy says, mortgage holders won’t be bailed out at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McD

Lower housing costs are a plus if you’re buying, but could see plenty people crushed under negative equity, your want will see thousands put into misery, and possibly lose their home.

as Ozy says, mortgage holders won’t be bailed out at all

---

In the long run low house prices are good. I actually deleted another paragraph about negative equity to replace it with a more simple version. I don't want anyone normal one property householder harmed but I am talking big picture.

I just can't see how normal people can continue to live the way house prices are. There needs to be a reset somehow and a crash could make home ownership a better prospect for the younger generation. An in a fairly short time it could mean workers quality of life greatly improves.
House prices have risen so sharply there can't be that many would be crushed under negative equity given the criteria for mortgages since 2008. The vast majority will have made a deposit and seen there house go up in value. We are miles away from the 130% mortgages and no checks on ability to pay the last time round. That isn't to ignore there would be issues but I guess far more would benefit compared to those who would suffer and it would be a cheaper fix to sort out negative equity than it would trying to fix the cost of housing for working people.

It may also mean house building is less profitable and the state can start to play a far bigger part in housing citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

In the long run low house prices are good. I actually deleted another paragraph about negative equity to replace it with a more simple version. I don't want anyone normal one property householder harmed but I am talking big picture.

I just can't see how normal people can continue to live the way house prices are. There needs to be a reset somehow and a crash could make home ownership a better prospect for the younger generation. An in a fairly short time it could mean workers quality of life greatly improves.
House prices have risen so sharply there can't be that many would be crushed under negative equity given the criteria for mortgages since 2008. The vast majority will have made a deposit and seen there house go up in value. We are miles away from the 130% mortgages and no checks on ability to pay the last time round. That isn't to ignore there would be issues but I guess far more would benefit compared to those who would suffer and it would be a cheaper fix to sort out negative equity than it would trying to fix the cost of housing for working people.

It may also mean house building is less profitable and the state can start to play a far bigger part in housing citizens.

---

None of that solves the problem of there not being enough houses. There needs to be more building of houses and no major party is serious about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just about every news outlet has a story about the mortgage crunch heading our way.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...27534d60d8.jpg
Given the areas of the country most affected, then there is at least a chance the govt does something about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

In the long run low house prices are good. I actually deleted another paragraph about negative equity to replace it with a more simple version. I don't want anyone normal one property householder harmed but I am talking big picture.

I just can't see how normal people can continue to live the way house prices are. There needs to be a reset somehow and a crash could make home ownership a better prospect for the younger generation. An in a fairly short time it could mean workers quality of life greatly improves.
House prices have risen so sharply there can't be that many would be crushed under negative equity given the criteria for mortgages since 2008. The vast majority will have made a deposit and seen there house go up in value. We are miles away from the 130% mortgages and no checks on ability to pay the last time round. That isn't to ignore there would be issues but I guess far more would benefit compared to those who would suffer and it would be a cheaper fix to sort out negative equity than it would trying to fix the cost of housing for working people.

It may also mean house building is less profitable and the state can start to play a far bigger part in housing citizens.

---

Why does it have to be a crash? A slowing down, yes, but a crash would create great instability and pain for many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/stat...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Housing market in for further shocks. Everything that happened under Truss has now happened again under Sunak, just took a bit longer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

We need to have a discussion about long term fixed rate mortgages like they do in other countries. This would take mortgages out of the equation when rates change. People have got very used to historical low interest rates, but as we know variable rates can rise too. Much better to have certainty over the term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Why does it have to be a crash? A slowing down, yes, but a crash would create great instability and pain for many people.

---

Because the prices are already ridiculously high compared to wages. Much like inflation slowing the rise isn't enough, the balance between wages and house prices needs restored back to a reasonable level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

Because the prices are already ridiculously high compared to wages. Much like inflation slowing the rise isn't enough, the balance between wages and house prices needs restored back to a reasonable level.

---

But the collateral damage for individuals would be huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

None of that solves the problem of there not being enough houses. There needs to be more building of houses and no major party is serious about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

The last sentence is where I addressed this. The Council can start Building houses again much like it did in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Millers and Cala etc building houses that are wildly beyond the vast majority of workers doesn't solve anything and they build when maximum profit is on offer. The public good doesn't factor into their thinking, the opposite probably.

None of the big political parties are serious about solving anything. Inflation, poverty, starvation, climate change, sewerage issues, water shortages, insulating homes, etc, etc etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have ideas particularly when we can look back to a time when the same nation did have the vast majority of things you would want in a society

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

The last sentence is where I addressed this. The Council can start Building houses again much like it did in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Millers and Cala etc building houses that are wildly beyond the vast majority of workers doesn't solve anything and they build when maximum profit is on offer. The public good doesn't factor into their thinking, the opposite probably.

None of the big political parties are serious about solving anything. Inflation, poverty, starvation, climate change, sewerage issues, water shortages, insulating homes, etc, etc etc. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have ideas particularly when we can look back to a time when the same nation did have the vast majority of things you would want in a society

---

I’m not sure councils have the borrowing power or the compulsory purchase powers they need to start building houses in the numbers we need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’m not sure councils have the borrowing power or the compulsory purchase powers they need to start building houses in the numbers we need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Then give them it. The problems are all very clear and lots of them have pretty easy solutions or at least measures that would help that could easily be brought into play. The big issue isn't the problems it is that those in power are only concerned about saying and doing the right thing to stay in power and couldn't care less about solving problems. Someone in power in the UK has the levers to start a massive council house building programme, start acquiring the land that would need by using CPOs etc and start to assemble the workforce required to do so. While they are at it they can design these houses around schooling, health and care and having everything needed within a short walk or accessible through good public transport. It really isn't that difficult. I can't really see why anyone would be against mass council house building and it would at least start to ease the pressure in pretty short order. It isn't a vote winner though, bizarrely, or more likely it doesn't suit those doing the lobbying with the heaviest cheque books who fund massive Facebook campaigns etc.

Someone, at some point needs to say the UK is completely broken. We need to draw a line, get a fresh piece of paper and start building a society that works for the vast majority. No amount of tinkering at the edges, as the main parties promote, will solve anything as it is all connected to underinvestment, selling assets for pocket change and filtering public money to a tiny part of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

Then give them it. The problems are all very clear and lots of them have pretty easy solutions or at least measures that would help that could easily be brought into play. The big issue isn't the problems it is that those in power are only concerned about saying and doing the right thing to stay in power and couldn't care less about solving problems. Someone in power in the UK has the levers to start a massive council house building programme, start acquiring the land that would need by using CPOs etc and start to assemble the workforce required to do so. While they are at it they can design these houses around schooling, health and care and having everything needed within a short walk or accessible through good public transport. It really isn't that difficult. I can't really see why anyone would be against mass council house building and it would at least start to ease the pressure in pretty short order. It isn't a vote winner though, bizarrely, or more likely it doesn't suit those doing the lobbying with the heaviest cheque books who fund massive Facebook campaigns etc.

Someone, at some point needs to say the UK is completely broken. We need to draw a line, get a fresh piece of paper and start building a society that works for the vast majority. No amount of tinkering at the edges, as the main parties promote, will solve anything as it is all connected to underinvestment, selling assets for pocket change and filtering public money to a tiny part of society.

---

I think donations to political parties from house builders might be a factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you were buying a house today would it be better to do it at 5% instead of 8% thats coming or wait 6 months for the supposedly crash thats coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wookie70

Then give them it. The problems are all very clear and lots of them have pretty easy solutions or at least measures that would help that could easily be brought into play. The big issue isn't the problems it is that those in power are only concerned about saying and doing the right thing to stay in power and couldn't care less about solving problems. Someone in power in the UK has the levers to start a massive council house building programme, start acquiring the land that would need by using CPOs etc and start to assemble the workforce required to do so. While they are at it they can design these houses around schooling, health and care and having everything needed within a short walk or accessible through good public transport. It really isn't that difficult. I can't really see why anyone would be against mass council house building and it would at least start to ease the pressure in pretty short order. It isn't a vote winner though, bizarrely, or more likely it doesn't suit those doing the lobbying with the heaviest cheque books who fund massive Facebook campaigns etc.

Someone, at some point needs to say the UK is completely broken. We need to draw a line, get a fresh piece of paper and start building a society that works for the vast majority. No amount of tinkering at the edges, as the main parties promote, will solve anything as it is all connected to underinvestment, selling assets for pocket change and filtering public money to a tiny part of society.

---

The problem with your model is that many people aspire to property ownership. Should that also be a policy consideration? I'm mixed about that, but it is a factor that politicians have to consider.

As for the 'Britain is totally broken' rhetoric, I get why politicos use it, but it isn't reflected in everyone's experience. I think the 'year zero' approach is not as attractive as some would paint. Not least because it implies a lot of pain for individuals.

I completely agree with you about increased council housing and I would add in short term measures (such as repurposing offices) to provide student type accommodation for young people leaving home or coming to the country to work. I think it possible to do that without the wrecking ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DH1875

If you were buying a house today would it be better to do it at 5% instead of 8% thats coming or wait 6 months for the supposedly crash thats coming?

---

I personally would never bet money on how the market will behave which is what that decision would be. I would buy if I saw a house I liked that I could afford and fix the rate. If market collapses then it could look a bad decision but if it doesn’t then you miss out on house you like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

Why does it have to be a crash? A slowing down, yes, but a crash would create great instability and pain for many people.

---

It has to be a crash so hedge funders can make money. Boom bust, an engineered pattern. Why do you think Truss and Kwartang were presented as competent?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

It has to be a crash so hedge funders can make money. Boom bust, an engineered pattern. Why do you think Truss and Kwartang were presented as competent?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

---

The hedge fund types are not the only people in the equation here. Do you seriously belive that the Tories would turn their back on homeowners? Who presented Truss and Kwarteng as competent - certainly not Sunak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archie

The hedge fund types are not the only people in the equation here. Do you seriously belive that the Tories would turn their back on homeowners? Who presented Truss and Kwarteng as competent - certainly not Sunak.

---

The press presented Truss as competent, the Tory Party presented her as their leader. Don't you remember?

Gove was on the telly this morning assiduously avoiding the question as whether the govt will help home owners.

What help do you think they will make available?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk