Unsurprising that it all shot out of control after 2010, and just more evidence that we need to build more.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)
United Kingdom
4100 readers
145 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is something I'd wish the next government would do. Seriously how hard is it to build? Bust through the bullshit planning restrictions and build houses that people want to live in.
The house building companies already have vast amounts of land they own with planning permission in place. They restrict the amount of housing they build to artificially keep the prices high, if they build too many, the prices they could sell their houses for would drop, reducing profit. These are private companies and the government has little control over them. This is why every government for the last few generations has promised more houses and delivered nothing.
It is unfortunate that the building companies make more money by not building, than by building.
We need a progressive land/council tax. Hording land should cost you.
My favourite suggestion should be that tax levels are based upon a heat map of urban density, but also linked to area owned. It was a suggestion that came out of the US because they have problems with land hording in urban areas, spaces that are just a car park to act as a holding for land.
It would mean that ownership of inner city, undeveloped land and also owning large estates is penalised.
I'm in favour of a Land Value Tax, this means hoarding land becomes expensive. It also means grouse moores and golf courses become expensive (good things in my mind)
These are private companies and the government has little control over them.
lol, they have an army, just send it in and nationalize the shit out of them. the government has as much control as it wants to have.
Tax the crap out of them until they build is usually easier.
neither of those are gonna happen, so it doesnt matter
I'm all for nationalising infrastructure, including houses, but you would still have to compensate shareholders unfortunately. If we didn't (which is an option) the markets would react very badly and make Liz Truss seem like a genius.
only if you let them. why does the government have to allow capital flight in the first place?
Because we are not a dictatorship and have no desire to be one.
you are a dictatorship, of capital
the alternative is a government that serves the people instead of the wealthy, but who wants that?
Overthrowing capitalism is unlikely to happen in the near term and the discussion was about homelessness.
lol
The gvernment only makes this situation worse with the town and country planning act too.
It's by design.
The rich want low housing and high population because it makes their assets go up. Traditionally like silent generation, greatest generation and before affordable homes for the working class and the following generations was seen as an ideal that people were willing to die for. This ideal was largely realised with the boomers.
But the boomers then decided it is better if they have houses and no one else does because their wealth can go up and they can then make money like the land owners than their grandparents were kept in poverty by. Now they can do it to their children!
I honestly don't think it will be solved until the boomers die. Even then I wouldn't count on it. Too much effort to keep population increasing no matter the cost.
If I was PM I would end up get voted out by doing something drastic like trying to put through a land value tax and building a new city 1mill+ city maybe between Hull and Leeds. Put a big fucking 200mph train line between Liverpool and Hull. Tell everyone to get fucked and steal some quotes from Churchill and JFK about going through hard time for the better of the country.
They simply don't want to. Construction company owners are some of the richest and ones who do the most lobbying to MPs.
Why would they? They're all landlords lol. More supply means dropping property values.
The next government. They are incentives to help younger generations and renters as these make up a large majority of their voters that helped them into power.
Yes, but they are all landlords, and ultimately they don't give two shits about the voters who helped them into power. They are beholden to capital.
They're all landlords too lol. Even corbynite labour MPs were fucking landleeches. The UK has a very rigid class system between the Landlords and the non-landlords. The economy here is basically just housing because nothing else is worth investing into, and all other sectors, especially construction, industrial manufacturing and tech/R&D are dead.
Until we:
- Ban buy-to-let mortgages.
- Ban landlords from owning multiple houses.
- Invest into social housing and ban so-called "affordable housing" lettings.
We'll continue to be stuck in this downward spiral.
The problem is, everyone in power is a landlord or otherwise benefits from the current system, so nothing changes and we continue circling the drain as a society.
agree with this and would add that the privatisation of social housing needs to be ended by abolishing the right to buy before real investment into it can begin
We need to build more because this is about a Shelter piece on people having to live as families in a single hotel room rotating locations.
We aren't even at the point of private landlords being the problem and preventing people from buying, as there simply aren't enough houses for people
It's both
An above average number of MPs are landlords but they're still a minority in the commons
I live in the 272nd most deprived area (out of 317).
New 4 bedrooms houses on horrible estates cost £850,000 because Londoners have moved here and commute from the nearest station.
Build the houses, make them actually affordable and only sell them to people who live or work in the local area.
surprised Canada isn't ranked worse
(without reading article) The answer presumably boils down to "the Tories".
Unfortunately the solutions are opposed by both sides, as lefties are arguing points about house building not reducing costs which doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If we build a million McMansions, they won't sell for £500k+ due to oversupply.
"Affordable housing" is just basically building more at this point, the reason you can sell ex-council houses for over £300k is because, as the article you didn't read says, 1 in 200 are homeless due to insufficient housing.
.5% of UK is homeless?
US official number is .25% but it doesn't account for people living in cars and other form "invisiable" homelessness, which eatimated to be much larger number than visiable
Then you should read the article.
This is the official statistics for people living in temporary accommodation whilst waiting for a house. These are families living in single room accommodation like a hotel room.
Sounds like the contents then don't support the headline.
I don't click corpo propaganda btw, let their owners pay for it themselves lol
It's an article by Shelter.
Which they would know, if they had read the article, right?
Edit: I shouldn't comment just to express salt at someone, so actually also, thanks OP for the no-paywall link.
Yes, I'm not sure how the preferred way to present content on here is yet so I gave the original URL as the link and then commented the archive link. I sometimes see people complaining that they don't see the body, so it sounds like we have to work around some crappy clients too.
If there is a preferred way of presenting this then I will update the submission.
Yeah, stuff like this is messy. I like that we're all muddling along and figuring things out as they go. Much of this is a problem with distributed social media — but not "problem" in a bad way, but something to overcome.
Practically, I don't know if there's a better way to do it, because as you say, there's not a one size fits all solution. I just wanted to say thanks because I probably wouldn't have read the article myself if I had to get a no-paywall link myself, so the little conveniences help.
its an FT link aka UK premier neoliberal rag
Worse than San Fransisco? No way.
Comparing a city to a country doesn't really work.
Why not. Walk around San Fransisco. There are multiple streets alternating from full of homeless people to upscale housing and hotels. Never seen that in the UK.
Then you should look around. It is very much a thing in the UK.
You just described London. Most of the city is a depressing dump, literal ghetto compared to any big city in the US