rudebwoy - Member
Capt Jon, according to your sources-- how many Empty properties ?It is never an exact science but looking at poll tax exemptions gives a clue
It only has data for second homes. But you're right about it not being an exact science. Some colleagues and i are about to start a research project examining the quality of this type of data. There are some anomalies in it which are quite interesting to explore
Edit - according to this [url= http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics-2/ ]site[/url] there are 720,000 empty properties in England.
mt-- does it ever occur that after your gran, nobody elses gran gets a look in unless they have wealth ?
Capt j-- that sounds like good work, getting down to 'facts' is always interesting, but as you know some are buried deep to avoid detection....
You should always judge a society by how it treats the sick,the vulnerable and the elderly,not by GDP, house prices etc
I agree in part, but you seem to want to judge the government of the day by "society", unless you want a massive state infrastructure weaving it's way in to all aspects of life that's not a reasonable representation of the reality of "society". You disregard that "society" as a complex network of family, friends, businesses, charities and associations as well as local and national government as well as lot's of other stakeholders.
society is people, people care about family, friends, strangers, they volunteer time, they work for an income, people create things, people vote for the government of the day
not happy with the current situation? change it by being active not moaning on a t'interweb forum
mt - Member
I like the tories, they made it possible for my Gran to buy the house she had lived in for years
you and your Gran have been "gerrymandered" 😉
did it hurt?
It made her and a rather large number of people happy to purchase her council(former)house, it would seem that this has been possible under both major parties. Given that it's possible to buy a house in this area for less than a 100k I suspect that your personal wealth can be reasonable to become a property owner. What do you mean by wealth, is that money or personal happiness. What I mean is being content and enjoying what you have. If by chance, hardwork or good fortune more wealth, goods or property come your way, does this make you happier.
CaptJ -- i was extrapolating from the emptys, the second homes, the derelicts-- which are huge in some areas, and empty flats above/next to businesses, whichever way you dress it up there is a lot of unused property already out there, 1.8 million on the waiting lists , a lot could be done with the right policies, goes against tory ideology, so not holding my breath, but the wherewithall is there....
[img] 
[/img]
big n daft-- i am active, have been and always will be until my dying day, t'is in the blood ......
@CaptJon - of the two figs you quote for London Boroughs, does the data show the nature of these second homes - privately held not for rent, rental etc?
This smacks of perfect dissertation material for a Human Geog undergrad. Wonder if there's anything published.
rogerthecat - Member
@CaptJon - of the two figs you quote for London Boroughs, does the data show the nature of these second homes - privately held not for rent, rental etc?
No, just total numbers. The stats from the empty homes site does though.
This smacks of perfect dissertation material for a Human Geog undergrad. Wonder if there's anything published.
Yep - there will hopefully be one of our undergrads covering this very topic next year. There are a few things published, but the emphasis is on holiday homes. The data we have shows that the picture is much more complex - e.g. London boroughs have high numbers (including Tower Hamlets, btw), the usual suspects, but also other random places one wouldn't first think of.
Anyone who wants to understand the impact of social housing cleansing just needs to read about the impacts of splitting up communities when huge numbers of people were moved into tower blocks in the 1960s and 70s.
There appears to be a view that people in social housing live outwith home owners in a particular area. But this is just wrong. Just imagine being told you had to move 30 miles away - what would the consequences of that be for getting to work? see your friends? childcare? kids and school?
Some have argued nobody will be forced out of their homes. That is naive. Councils will just not renew tenancies for social houses in higher priced areas, effectively forcing people out so they can sell a home. It isn't a reason for not doing it, but this policy is ripe for abuse and corruption - if it is implemented, as well as a sufficient safety net for people at risk of homelessness, there needs to be tight examination of what is being sold and to whom.
I love the irony of some of the posts on this thread, it's criminal to stop people from living in areas they otherwise couldn't afford to live in but absolute fine to take away others properties that they've worked for. Not every person with a second home is a wealthy fat cat, many earn more than the average but do a job that justifies the salary.
The trouble with the more idealogical approaches (again ironic that the Tory polices are branded idealogical as an insult when much of the left wing claptrap being spouted on here is idealogical in the extreme) is that it requires fundamental flawed people to make sure they work properly. What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating and not directly influenced by the pettiness of the politcal whims.
We don't live in utopia, society is not ready for utopia, we've got to make the best of the resources we have got and attempt to steer the markets in direction that is generally percieved as beneficial for society. Even if we could live in utopia not everybodies idea of utopia is the same.
We don't live in utopia, society is not ready for utopia
Have you been to Leeds?
What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating
You mean like Barclays?
What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating
...yes, of course, just like kids in sweet shops. You know you've had enough when you spew all over your sailor suit.
is that it requires fundamental flawed people to make sure they work properly. What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating and not directly influenced by the pettiness of the politcal whims
who knew that the solution for fundamentally flawed people was to not regulate them.
Not only have you not thought that through you have defeated your own point.
You do realise that everything was self regulating until we had to regulate it because it remained fundamentally flawed.
oh yes of course you do
we've got to make the best of the resources we have got and attempt to steer the markets in direction that is generally percieved as beneficial for society
We call that attempt to steer the markets regulation
Deary me and you call other folk for spouting ideologies.
Ps making the best use of resources would probably involve folk not starving to death because they dont have any.
You do realise that everything was self regulating until we had to regulate it because it remained fundamentally flawed.
oh yes of course you do
when was this wonderul self-regulating period?
the bit before the regulation and if it was wonderful then there would have been no need to regulate 🙄
Some sharp tools coming out of the box on this thread, stumpyion you get the next policy initiative, with your grasp of knowledge, the jigsaw will remain unsolved, an OBE will be on its way.....
stumpyjon - Member
I love the irony of some of the posts on this thread, it's criminal to stop people from living in areas they otherwise couldn't afford to live in but absolute fine to take away others properties that they've worked for. Not every person with a second home is a wealthy fat cat, many earn more than the average but do a job that justifies the salary.The trouble with the more idealogical approaches (again ironic that the Tory polices are branded idealogical as an insult when much of the left wing claptrap being spouted on here is idealogical in the extreme) is that it requires fundamental flawed people to make sure they work properly. What capitalism does is provide a framework outside of society which is in most case self regulating and not directly influenced by the pettiness of the politcal whims.
We don't live in utopia, society is not ready for utopia, we've got to make the best of the resources we have got and attempt to steer the markets in direction that is generally percieved as beneficial for society. Even if we could live in utopia not everybodies idea of utopia is the same.
Post of the day. So much wrong on so many levels. Must be a troll.
That's the sad part, he thinks he is having a dialogue, reckon he swallowed one of those marketing books
If these new house,s are built in areas where there are no jobs for the people that are forced to move there what is the point , or are we as a nation happy to have areas where no one works and live on benefits ?
Or will the government chose the areas to build has plenty of jobs going so people you are moved there have some future hopes to better themselves .
The flaw in this 'proposal' is the ignorance of the fact that many council homes in certain areas have had their values grossly inflated by the housing market. Some areas of London especially have seen some previously 'undesirable' properties reach ridiculous levels of 'value'; 1/2-bedroom flats selling for £400,000 and more. The properties mentioned in the report are extreme examples, and are unrepresentative of the vast majority of social housing. This proposal seems more about bolstering the stagnant property market (thus generating income for those fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy and sell property) than any genuine attempt to address the housing crisis.
At the end of the day is it not madness for a council to own say 10 high value homes that they could sell and build 20 homes of the same size in a less affluent part of the city. London is the most extreme where probably 95% of the population could not afford to live in Westminster, Richmond or Chelsea so why should there be council houses there. They are always going that there is not enough social housing so is it not best to utilise the value of the properties a council has to provide the most homes.
I agree that people should not be shipped out to areas where there are no jobs r the other end of the country but if I lost my job, fell on hard times and was given a council house would it be that bad to have to move across the city? It is a cheap house after all.
At the end of the day is it not madness for a council to own say 10 high value homes that they could sell and build 20 homes of the same size in a less affluent part of the city.
Why can't the 20 homes be built in the same affluent areas though?
Why do those who have to rely on social housing have to live in the 'less desirable' areas?' Is that not social segregation?
London is the most extreme where probably 95% of the population could not afford to live in Westminster, Richmond or Chelsea so why should there be council houses there
Why should there not be? Is it not a good idea for people of all walks of life to share where they live with others, regardless of wealth, background or culture?
I agree that people should not be shipped out to areas where there are no jobs r the other end of the country but if I lost my job, fell on hard times and was given a council house would it be that bad to have to move across the city? It is a cheap house after all.
Posted 9 seconds ago # Report-Post
But then again are their enough council owned houses or ones owned by social housiong landlords, you may well have to live in a really grotty bedsit, as thats all the la will pay for on HB, some are really terrible.
It may well be a cheap house compared to a mortgage, but will probably be grottier and in a worse area.
Why can't the 20 homes be built in the same affluent areas though?Why do those who have to rely on social housing have to live in the 'less desirable' areas?' Is that not social segregation?
Where would you put them? We're talking heavily built-up central London, where there is no brownfield available; are you seriously advocating demolishing a perfectly good, expensive house just to build a small block of cheap, shoddily built apartments?
The only possible places to put the new housing is on regenerated industrial land, like the Olympic park; the costs of reclaiming often heavily polluted industrial sites are massive, so selling high-value buildings in places where the prospective buyers are likely able to afford them in order to fund the clean-up and building of new developments where there is the space for them makes perfect sense.
Or else take large empty office blocks and convert them to low-rent apartments for lower-paid local workers, which makes sense, and, as has been mentioned, force landlords to open up empty accommodation above shops.
Even in my small-ish market town, there are quite a few shops in the high street with clearly under utilised upper floors that could be used for housing people, despite the oft-cited 'security issues'!
And as for 'less desirable areas', well, there's no reason those areas should be less desirable; I'm sure many people would prefer to live away from a noisy, cluttered city centre where there's nowhere for the kids to play.
I've stayed over in a flat in the centre of Bath, when it was necessary to have the window open at night, and the noise from rowdy drunks at 3am after they've left the clubs was soul destroying! It's the last place I'd want to live, right in a city centre.
Or else take large empty office blocks and convert them to low-rent apartments for lower-paid local workers
If you take out the office blocks - where are they going to work?
The fundamental flaw in all these arguments is that cities were laregelly desgined and infrastructured when they required large number of people to operate. Now we have databases, e-mail and floor polishers the city doesn't need typing pools, clerks and cleaners in the same numbers.
The government don't seem to be able to correlate birth statistics and housing demands - but guess what - they'll stop growing eventually.
We're building huge doughnuts that have already gone stale.
