Right To Buy - WAG slash discounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 14:33

Planning eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 10:34

It wasn't planning constraints that stopped Councils building affordable homes for rent for over 25 years (up to 2010 when the coalition allowed the Labour changes to Council housing finance to go through). It was central government policy on Council housing finance and the Right To Buy.

---

---

Are you seriously trying to say land banking does not go on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 16:16

Flood the market with good quality affordable homes and house prices fall along with rents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 14:31

I fear that we have perpetuated this bubble for too long for this to happen. How many people would it potentially ruin if house prices were to take a sudden dive due to a mass house building project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 11:14

the typical UK householder is far too interested in the value of their home. the value of your home should only be of interest when (i) you are buying or (ii) when you are selling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 10:17

the needs of those without homes is far greater than those who wish to maintain an illusion of wealth. **** 'em.

---

---

---

---

Of course land banking goes on. But that's when planning has been given. It takes an inordinate amount of ti.e to get to that stage with the state being part of the slow process.

Kinell my phone is bobbins.

1. Only
2. Selling
3. Time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 20:01

Flood the market with good quality affordable homes and house prices fall along with rents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 16:16

I fear that we have perpetuated this bubble for too long for this to happen. How many people would it potentially ruin if house prices were to take a sudden dive due to a mass house building project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 14:31

the typical UK householder is far too interested in the value of their home. the value of your home should only be of interest when (i) you are buying or (ii) when you are selling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 11:14

the needs of those without homes is far greater than those who wish to maintain an illusion of wealth. **** 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 10:17

It isn't their illusion that I fear will be crushed but their finances when the value of their recently purchased house tumbles. Surely a risky policy for an incumbant government.

---

---

---

---

---

Thanks for your clarification, it was your suggestion that land banking was dogmatic bollocks that confused me.

That's not what I suggested. I suggested that developers hold on to land rather than to develop them.

Silly phone. I meant it was ludicrous to suggest...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 20:35

Silly phone. I meant it was ludicrous to suggest...

---

Mmm --- more complex than i thought.

I was on about the dogmatic claim that landowners deliberately hold on to land to drive up prices rather than develop them for profit. Shareholders want to see real tangible profits that generate cash rather than unrealised gains on land values. For that reason property developers develop as soon as they can assuming they have the finance to do so and the local market has the appetite for new build that is being proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 20:01

Flood the market with good quality affordable homes and house prices fall along with rents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 16:16

I fear that we have perpetuated this bubble for too long for this to happen. How many people would it potentially ruin if house prices were to take a sudden dive due to a mass house building project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 14:31

the typical UK householder is far too interested in the value of their home. the value of your home should only be of interest when (i) you are buying or (ii) when you are selling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 11:14

the needs of those without homes is far greater than those who wish to maintain an illusion of wealth. **** 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 10:17

It isn't their illusion that I fear will be crushed but their finances when the value of their recently purchased house tumbles. Surely a risky policy for an incumbant government.

---

---

---

---

---

Well it matters if you are mortgaged up to the eyeballs on a property that has lost a big portion of its value.

Feedback you are taking a hammering off someone who works in the sector

You are making a tit of yourself

Tory housing policy? **** em

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/31843655.jpg

Kiffa

The inference from jon was that developers hold on to land even if they can develop. That's plain wrong. Developed land is worth much more than undeveloped land. A developer will develop as quickly as possible as hold g on to land for longer than necessary ties up capital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 10:40

Kiffa

---

Hell of a drug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 10:40

Kiffa

---

You can deny it all day long - but you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 16:01

Planning eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 14:33

It wasn't planning constraints that stopped Councils building affordable homes for rent for over 25 years (up to 2010 when the coalition allowed the Labour changes to Council housing finance to go through). It was central government policy on Council housing finance and the Right To Buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Thu, 04 June 2015 10:34

The Right to Buy meant that even if Councils could build (without being penalised through the national redistribution/subsidy system) they faced losing an expensive asset within a few years and getting less in capital receipt than the build cost.

---

---

---

Most of what you have written and linked to is utter hogwash and no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 23:33

Kiffa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 10:40

The inference from jon was that developers hold on to land even if they can develop. That's plain wrong. Developed land is worth much more than undeveloped land. A developer will develop as quickly as possible as hold g on to land for longer than necessary ties up capital.

---

---

Those that claim landowners land bank do so on the basis of rising land values, and this is far from the truth as it gets. Rising land values have no impact on those that own the land for development unless they sell - and most developers aren't land speculators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 08 June 2015 08:53

Kiffa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 23:33

The inference from jon was that developers hold on to land even if they can develop. That's plain wrong. Developed land is worth much more than undeveloped land. A developer will develop as quickly as possible as hold g on to land for longer than necessary ties up capital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 10:40

I wan't inferring it. I was saying it happens. Not just holding onto plots to assemble full development sites (which can make sense), but actual 'land banking'. HM Government Tory ministers and the Tory Mayor of London also say it happens - look at the links above - and on a scale that seriously holds back the pace of new house building.

---

---

---

Maybe just have a bit of magnanimousness about you. We all saw saw you do it.

you all saw me do what exactly?

I said right at the outset that developers don't hold on to land to sell later when values have risen. That is not to say they don't leave land fallow until such time as the conditions are right for development which is something different altogether.

the reason what some people claim that developers don't develop is nonsensical. Developed land is worth far more than land with just planning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 08 June 2015 08:53

Kiffa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959 wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 23:33

The inference from jon was that developers hold on to land even if they can develop. That's plain wrong. Developed land is worth much more than undeveloped land. A developer will develop as quickly as possible as hold g on to land for longer than necessary ties up capital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Sun, 07 June 2015 10:40

I wan't inferring it. I was saying it happens. Not just holding onto plots to assemble full development sites (which can make sense), but actual 'land banking'. HM Government Tory ministers and the Tory Mayor of London also say it happens - look at the links above - and on a scale that seriously holds back the pace of new house building.

---

---

---

Your first comment on this fact was that it was 'dogmatic bollocks', and you haven't added much since then. I'm bored with this now, and the return of the slippery Feedback we knew too well, so I'm out.

@Jon

despite agreeing with my point you're still arguing which is quite ridiculous.

There are people who claim that landowners hold on to land to make more money when land values rise. I'm not sure why you have suggested I levelled this at you because I have not.

the slow pace of housebuilding is not due to developers not developing - as soon as they have planning and as soon as market conditions ensure the sale of that being developed, a developer will build. A developer will soon go out of business if they continually build at a loss which benefits no one long term.

A case in point is the Greenbank development at Ferry Road. Despite planning and despite some property being sold, the waterfront property development facing Penarth have stalled as there is no local interest in the properties at the current prices. It is likely that this part of the development will remain undeveloped until such time as there is demand in the local market at current prices or until Greenbank reduce what they are asking for the properties.

you really do seem to be arguing for the sake of it and contrary to what you are trying to say, my position on this has been consistent throughout.

http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 08 June 2015 16:20

@Jon

---

Mine just went off the scale and blew up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kiffa wrote on Mon, 08 June 2015 16:42

@Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Local Boy wrote on Mon, 08 June 2015 16:20

despite agreeing with my point you're still arguing which is quite ridiculous.

---

---

if someone agrees with me I tend not to argue with them, I tend to comment on how sensible they are and how they must be of rational mind.

Whats good news about the poor being told they cant have extra help to further their financial lives and have an asset, an asset that can be passed onto their children, an asset that might hep them get out of the poverty trap. Why is this good news?

Helping keep the poor poor is what this is. Oh lets rejoice. http://www.ccmb.co.uk/images/smiley_icons/facepalm.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry Dragon wrote on Mon, 08 June 2015 16:55

Whats good news about the poor being told they cant have extra help to further their financial lives and have an asset, an asset that can be passed onto their children, an asset that might hep them get out of the poverty trap. Why is this good news?

---

its quite alright for those with lovely 3 bedroom semi detached houses in suburbia to wax lyrical about the need for social housing without actually considering living in it themselves.