Perhaps nimbism is understandable when there are no corrosponding infrastructue projects to deal with the influx of new people. We are going to build 1000 new homes in your area but where are the increases in all services, rubbish collection/schools/hospitals/GP's and transport links to deal with it? Especially when they are paring all services to the bone whilst charging more.
Yep, I see this im my area. 'Property' companies buying land and holding via various related companies over a number of years and then managing to get planning permission on the land and selling on to a big developer. I'm sure there are lots of dodgy dealings going on with people sitting on planning committees. Profits are privatised and the costs (services/road congestion etc) are socialised. Its a complete racket !
Why no mention of Right To Buy? You talk so much about the lack of incentives for the local councils, and taking rents from council housing is a HUGE incentive. It also draws down the overall price of private rents by creating more competition in the market. Many countries with strong social housing programs don't have the same level of problems with housing.
As usual with these post 90s 'academics' they have been indoctrinated by the left and socialist, teachings so they conveniently ignore any good that the right wing capitalists policies have done to help fix the problem. They either don't know about it, can't understand, or do, but can't admit it happened publically
good points on the land cost. But aesthetics, that's just a general loss in our days. Being frugal after paying up for the land is not the main factor there.
Minute 3:40 Land with Planning permission is so Scarce, that it is sold for premium prices, Government causes this Scarcity, this is only the first great issue
Even so, land is only worth so much, even if land was free it wouldn't drop houses prices that much. Here in Cornwall it would anount to 50k per house, so rather than a market value of 350k it could be 300k. There's mountains of cost building homes. Take this from someone that actually builds them.
service charge is annoying .I'm paying so much and really i don't know for .I cut an acre of grass for 6000£ .This is a lobby group they have different agreements between them
@John-c4r1o Take it from somebody that builds Houses that I agree with you, land costs are only the first hurdle, then planning costs, interest on the loans, then Tax on Materials, employment costs
@John-c4r1o So there has been a huge rise in building materials and labour, but that is rather recent. The rebuild cost of my home according to insurance was 30K in 2015, was 120 last year and the house is still worth 100's of thousands. So land is still a big driver.
A question; Did the original paper mention the increased financialisation of housing and property in general? Real wages, construction, materials or supply-demand doesn’t explain “housing as an asset” fully. Especially since the affordability ratio has skyrocketed in every OECD country (mentioned at 12:20), across parties and governments. Every parliament _allowed_ housing to become an asset, through legislative changes. If we acknowledge that “capital” is created though law (e.g. Pistor, Stiglitz), isn’t legislation also the way forward? Naive question - as no political party dares to “mess” with finance, immediately losing support from that sector…
In 1988 Nichols Ridley MP was accused of Nimbyism. This is extracted from the BBC article: The word was first recorded in 1980, but for a British audience it was the late Nicholas Ridley, an arch Thatcher-loyalist, who brought it to wider usage, in the late 80s. As environment secretary, Ridley had no fear in appearing abrasive. He was, after all, the man in charge of the poll tax. The late Nicholas Ridley Nicholas Ridley: It's not a museum He also used his position to attack the rural middle classes for their opposition to development, calling it "crude Nimbyism". At the root of distaste for Nimbys is a belief that the protesters are putting their own interests ahead of the needs of society, and that their objections are selfish rather than principled. It's an analysis which was only strengthened when Ridley himself was later revealed to be opposing the building of new houses which he would have been able to see from his Cotswold country home.
@@daryoushhaj-najafi9865 We have two giants to our left and right. America and China. The US dominates the tech sector and China dominates manufacture. First make a success out of making a living in Britain before inviting others in. Britain has not made a fiscal surplus for the last 24 years which is why taxes are being raised by Labour. We have already had growth in population but gdp per capita has flatlined. Growth is turnover when what we want is profit
An interesting analysis, but it fails to identify the actual cause and main driver of housing price inflation. NIMBYism, regulatory bloat, etc. all contribute to the crisis of housing unaffordability, but the primary causes of the problem actually lie in the financialization of housing as an asset class coupled with the embedded growth obligations of debt based money.
Good point. I would also like to know how and why land with permits is priced so much higher than land with no permits. It's almost like alchemy for the owners who can get planning permission for their land.
You're quite right about NIMBYism, however you cant blame people for wanting to preserve their local environment. The real cause of rampant house price inflation is due to two issues: massive growth in the money supply causing huge bouts of asset price inflation and the most important reason of all is massive population growth due to reckless levels of immigration which have put huge pressures on housing supply and all public services.
Disagree a bit. Nimbyism is an issue and regularity bloat do contribute however, 'financialisaton' is not a factor imho. Houses are an asset and always have been since civilisation started. The 6x-8x avg salary requirement for a house up from 3x in most of the country is readily explainable by women now earning the same as men and willing to back joint mortgages. Increased demand from people living alone after devorce and longer lifespans just add to this. Planning etc... explain the further kick to 9-12x avg salary you can see in cities. immigration ,cheap money are simply petrol to the fire
A rather long and waffling 16 minutes. Academics do like talking don't they. When I notice academic people talking about housing they generally don't want to talk about the elephant in the room which is immigration. This talk takes 10 minutes to reach the subject and then gives few details. In the first 10 minutes there is discussion about land availability. Typically as here there is talk of zoning into green belts and farm land, and a quick poke at nimbys and yimbys. At this stage such discussions talk on as if land is being produced in a factory like motor cars rather than being a strictly finite geographical term. There is no mention of population density for example, though the UK and the Netherlands have virtually the highest population densities in Europe. Such useful indicators are simply not mentionned even though this is meant to be a rational and logical approach to housing problems. The elephant in the room of course is immigration. We all know that native Europeans are not reproducing themselves as in the past. Fertility rates are falling and families are much smaller than in the past. The replacement rate is well below the 2.1 per woman to maintain the same population. The only logical conclusion from that is that left to itself the population would reduce and the only conclusion from that is that housing would become much easier as older people gradually died off and their homes become empty. But immigration has been encouraged by business forces and by liberal forces. In effect in several countries national borders have been virtually lifted. This has resulted in the native population of London falling from around 98% in 1961 to 53% in 1991 and has now reduced to about 36% in 2021. This is a large topic and involves many actors from the UN/WHO/WEF/EU together with thousands of non-governmental organisations (ngo's) and quangos. (quasi-autonomous non governmental organisations). And Charities. And of course central and local governments. My last point is that as someone growing up in London in the 1960's and 70's immigration was mostly certainly starting in the last 60's as Southall gradually became populated by Asians and Brixton by West Indians. So by 1988 the process was well underway. The massive change took place from 1997 under Tony Blair's government and the assistance of his immigration minister Barbera Roche. Andrew Neather (an advisor and speech writer) commented that this was all planned secretly to rub the right wing noses in diversity: Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’. He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far. The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’ It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it. Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats. Why are "housing experts" so dishonest in their discussions?
Probably because they are seeking to work out why enough houses are not being built rather than how much housing there should be. Strictly speaking the question of immigration is outside of their remit. Demand for everything would be lower if there were less people it's not a particularly illuminating argument.
Great appraisal of the problem. Mass immigration has made it harder for indigenous brits to have a family, just look at the numbers of 30plus yrs old still at home. Doesn't affect the new arrivals in subsidised social or rented accommodation, in fact my observation is that they ALL have a lockin baby as soon as they get their feet under the table. who would blame them ENGLAND is great,
In Norfolk, the County Council has enforced a "levy" (meaning a Tax) on Housing Developers this Levy is to Pay for Taxying children to School everyday. Yep, those that are forced to take out Mortgages must pay "in their mortgages" for children to be taken to School by Taxi everyday ! !
It has always fascinated me that councils would rather hand wealth to random land owners than operate a land bank where they create wealth for the public good.
I’m not a nimby, but it should be mandatory that if someone builds homes on a mass scale locally then they need to build a school and some health service facility. How can all these blocks of flats be built without extra schools being added? In which case it’s absolutely reasonable to block these homes being built. First you build the school then you build the homes.
Very Few people in the UK are aware of the new Laws, that is the Nutrient Neutrality requirements ! ! No new homes can be built until these requirements are fulfilled ! !
The simple answer is that something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. What you are prepared to pay for a house is immaterial. It is what the banks are prepared to lend you to buy it. During Blair’s time they encouraged banks to lend ever larger amounts via letting the banks set their own reserve ratios. People’s asking price went up because people could pay it. This is why land costs have gone up because house prices have risen making land with planning permission worth more than land without.
This is true. Availability of bigger and bigger mortgages is the thing driving house prices first and foremost, but immigration - too many people chasing too few houses also plays a role. The advent of the buy to let mortgage was in my opinion a bad idea, and they should be banned, making being landlords only possible to those with cash to finance it - as it was pre 90s
@@mw01908BTL isn't a problem, contrary to Londoner geezer theories we don't have a crisis of Landlord's but actually a lack of rental units. We were always heading for a supply shock and price spike due to women working full time and their equal if not greater propensity to spend that income on housing while soaring divorce rates mean young people on the small house/flat side of the market are overbid. We just poured petrol on that fire with cheap money and immigration.
Nimbyism was nothing to do with planning nurds or was it recent. Anyone in there 60's or over will remember well the origins of not in my back yard as it was a scandal when Nichols Ridley objected to a new build that would block his view of the countryside. The press at the time had a field day and from then on, the term has been in common usage. So, I suggest Christian reconsider his source before making inaccurate statements.
It's really a culture of nimbism There are parts of America that do not have this culture really think they can tell you what to do in your own land. For example I am from suburban Boston Massachusetts one of the most nimby places in my county the average home cost is now $1.6 million! And if you actually look at the zoning regulations it's very similar to where I live now in the far north of upstate New York for the average home cost $110,000 get the average income is only 45% lower than Massachusetts. This place in New York technically has all the same zoning and environmental regulations on the books but it's very conservative and no one cares what you do on your own land so the laws never get enforced because local neighbors don't care what you do on your land. Like the house I live in was built a few years ago on the farm I manage it cost us $58,000 and it's pretty well done pretty high-end actually We did most of the work ourselves never got any permit at all and it's on the main road. I actually asked all my neighbors if they ever got any permits to build a building a new house or anything everyone said no why would I do that It's my land lol. You want to go back to Massachusetts everyone thinks that is insane and they pull permits too rehab their bathroom. Lol
Wat a load of waffle. I could have saved you the trouble of this podcast. i've been an investor and housebuilder since 87. Our current problems are completely due to mass uncontrolled immigration over 10 million extra people in 20 years.
Our current problems are completely due to parasitic land-hoarding and land-banking "investors" who treat housing as an "asset" and tenants as their personal ATMs.
Less than 2% of the UK land surface has been built upon with Houses, if the UK were to double its Housing Stock it would not take up 4% of UK land surface
Every now and again this is said as if small percentages are an argument. It is sort of like when feminists state the year then claim something ought to be the case because of it. 2% is bad, 4% is awful. England taken as a country, would be the most populous advanced fully fledged nation on earth tied with S. Korea and ahead of Japan. There are countries with higher population densities, all the advanced ones are city states micronations and islands (not countries in a comparable sense). The rest are overpopulated developing world hell holes (again, except S. Korea), get to 4% and you get to ride on top of trains and drink brown water....
@@CmdrTobs Yes, the 2% vs 4% argument is an very simplistic way of looking at it. It does not take into account what you would need to do to double the UK housing supply. Many places are just not suitable for building on, or if they did, nobody would want to live there. There is a reason that people all crowd into London despite it being overcrowded
@@mw01908 Indeed. The evidence is all around. another thing caught my attention recently, the shear number of junctions on our motorways due to density. If you have driven elsewhere you'd realise how odd this is.
Lever of Sunlight Soap built Pirt Phillip worker housing, a whole suburb out of a field. We can do that again. We have to push Governments to do this again.
Houses are too expensive. People have less children. Less working people in 20 years time. Top heavy demographics. Big hole in the budget. Higher taxes and immigration is the future. What a mess.
Aged Pension etc will probably cease at age 80 in coming years. Everyone will get to 60-80 (20 years). Then they will have to move in with family until Dementia arrives and pay 100% for that. It will take pressure if younger people so they may get services in the future. Or we can keep people going to 115 and younger people die from lack of sthelter, jobs or not marrying because what's the point?
Criticism The IEA has been criticized for operating more like a lobbying operation than a think tank. Some have also complained that the IEA promotes extremist views and acts outside of charity regulations
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Good points, no mention of Right To Buy though, that’s definitely a significant factor.
Perhaps nimbism is understandable when there are no corrosponding infrastructue projects to deal with the influx of new people.
We are going to build 1000 new homes in your area but where are the increases in all services, rubbish collection/schools/hospitals/GP's and transport links to deal with it? Especially when they are paring all services to the bone whilst charging more.
Yep, I see this im my area. 'Property' companies buying land and holding via various related companies over a number of years and then managing to get planning permission on the land and selling on to a big developer. I'm sure there are lots of dodgy dealings going on with people sitting on planning committees. Profits are privatised and the costs (services/road congestion etc) are socialised. Its a complete racket !
Why no mention of Right To Buy?
You talk so much about the lack of incentives for the local councils, and taking rents from council housing is a HUGE incentive. It also draws down the overall price of private rents by creating more competition in the market.
Many countries with strong social housing programs don't have the same level of problems with housing.
As usual with these post 90s 'academics' they have been indoctrinated by the left and socialist, teachings so they conveniently ignore any good that the right wing capitalists policies have done to help fix the problem. They either don't know about it, can't understand, or do, but can't admit it happened publically
good points on the land cost. But aesthetics, that's just a general loss in our days. Being frugal after paying up for the land is not the main factor there.
Minute 3:40 Land with Planning permission is so Scarce, that it is sold for premium prices, Government causes this Scarcity, this is only the first great issue
Even so, land is only worth so much, even if land was free it wouldn't drop houses prices that much. Here in Cornwall it would anount to 50k per house, so rather than a market value of 350k it could be 300k. There's mountains of cost building homes. Take this from someone that actually builds them.
service charge is annoying .I'm paying so much and really i don't know for .I cut an acre of grass for 6000£ .This is a lobby group they have different agreements between them
@John-c4r1o Take it from somebody that builds Houses that I agree with you, land costs are only the first hurdle, then planning costs, interest on the loans, then Tax on Materials, employment costs
@John-c4r1o So there has been a huge rise in building materials and labour, but that is rather recent.
The rebuild cost of my home according to insurance was 30K in 2015, was 120 last year and the house is still worth 100's of thousands. So land is still a big driver.
I`m a Nimby. You would be too if the sewage system kept blowing outside your house due to loads of houses being built elsewhere.
A question; Did the original paper mention the increased financialisation of housing and property in general?
Real wages, construction, materials or supply-demand doesn’t explain “housing as an asset” fully. Especially since the affordability ratio has skyrocketed in every OECD country (mentioned at 12:20), across parties and governments.
Every parliament _allowed_ housing to become an asset, through legislative changes. If we acknowledge that “capital” is created though law (e.g. Pistor, Stiglitz), isn’t legislation also the way forward?
Naive question - as no political party dares to “mess” with finance, immediately losing support from that sector…
yes, this.
In 1988 Nichols Ridley MP was accused of Nimbyism. This is extracted from the BBC article: The word was first recorded in 1980, but for a British audience it was the late Nicholas Ridley, an arch Thatcher-loyalist, who brought it to wider usage, in the late 80s.
As environment secretary, Ridley had no fear in appearing abrasive. He was, after all, the man in charge of the poll tax.
The late Nicholas Ridley
Nicholas Ridley: It's not a museum
He also used his position to attack the rural middle classes for their opposition to development, calling it "crude Nimbyism".
At the root of distaste for Nimbys is a belief that the protesters are putting their own interests ahead of the needs of society, and that their objections are selfish rather than principled.
It's an analysis which was only strengthened when Ridley himself was later revealed to be opposing the building of new houses which he would have been able to see from his Cotswold country home.
Don't need 1 million homes. Just send a million immigrants back
Why do you have such an anti-growth mindset?
@@daryoushhaj-najafi9865 We have two giants to our left and right. America and China. The US dominates the tech sector and China dominates manufacture. First make a success out of making a living in Britain before inviting others in. Britain has not made a fiscal surplus for the last 24 years which is why taxes are being raised by Labour. We have already had growth in population but gdp per capita has flatlined. Growth is turnover when what we want is profit
An interesting analysis, but it fails to identify the actual cause and main driver of housing price inflation. NIMBYism, regulatory bloat, etc. all contribute to the crisis of housing unaffordability, but the primary causes of the problem actually lie in the financialization of housing as an asset class coupled with the embedded growth obligations of debt based money.
Good point. I would also like to know how and why land with permits is priced so much higher than land with no permits. It's almost like alchemy for the owners who can get planning permission for their land.
You're quite right about NIMBYism, however you cant blame people for wanting to preserve their local environment. The real cause of rampant house price inflation is due to two issues: massive growth in the money supply causing huge bouts of asset price inflation and the most important reason of all is massive population growth due to reckless levels of immigration which have put huge pressures on housing supply and all public services.
Disagree a bit. Nimbyism is an issue and regularity bloat do contribute however, 'financialisaton' is not a factor imho. Houses are an asset and always have been since civilisation started.
The 6x-8x avg salary requirement for a house up from 3x in most of the country is readily explainable by women now earning the same as men and willing to back joint mortgages. Increased demand from people living alone after devorce and longer lifespans just add to this. Planning etc... explain the further kick to 9-12x avg salary you can see in cities.
immigration ,cheap money are simply petrol to the fire
A rather long and waffling 16 minutes. Academics do like talking don't they. When I notice academic people talking about housing they generally don't want to talk about the elephant in the room which is immigration. This talk takes 10 minutes to reach the subject and then gives few details. In the first 10 minutes there is discussion about land availability. Typically as here there is talk of zoning into green belts and farm land, and a quick poke at nimbys and yimbys. At this stage such discussions talk on as if land is being produced in a factory like motor cars rather than being a strictly finite geographical term. There is no mention of population density for example, though the UK and the Netherlands have virtually the highest population densities in Europe. Such useful indicators are simply not mentionned even though this is meant to be a rational and logical approach to housing problems.
The elephant in the room of course is immigration. We all know that native Europeans are not reproducing themselves as in the past. Fertility rates are falling and families are much smaller than in the past. The replacement rate is well below the 2.1 per woman to maintain the same population. The only logical conclusion from that is that left to itself the population would reduce and the only conclusion from that is that housing would become much easier as older people gradually died off and their homes become empty.
But immigration has been encouraged by business forces and by liberal forces. In effect in several countries national borders have been virtually lifted. This has resulted in the native population of London falling from around 98% in 1961 to 53% in 1991 and has now reduced to about 36% in 2021. This is a large topic and involves many actors from the UN/WHO/WEF/EU together with thousands of non-governmental organisations (ngo's) and quangos. (quasi-autonomous non governmental organisations). And Charities. And of course central and local governments.
My last point is that as someone growing up in London in the 1960's and 70's immigration was mostly certainly starting in the last 60's as Southall gradually became populated by Asians and Brixton by West Indians. So by 1988 the process was well underway. The massive change took place from 1997 under Tony Blair's government and the assistance of his immigration minister Barbera Roche. Andrew Neather (an advisor and speech writer) commented that this was all planned secretly to rub the right wing noses in diversity:
Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.
He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far.
The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’
It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.
Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.
The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats.
Why are "housing experts" so dishonest in their discussions?
A rather long and waffling 5 minute post.
Probably because they are seeking to work out why enough houses are not being built rather than how much housing there should be. Strictly speaking the question of immigration is outside of their remit. Demand for everything would be lower if there were less people it's not a particularly illuminating argument.
Yawn not reading that garbage
Great appraisal of the problem. Mass immigration has made it harder for indigenous brits to have a family, just look at the numbers of 30plus yrs old still at home. Doesn't affect the new arrivals in subsidised social or rented accommodation, in fact my observation is that they ALL have a lockin baby as soon as they get their feet under the table. who would blame them ENGLAND is great,
@@bopndop2347 What a stupid contribution to a well argued post. I be you were a remedial class boy.
No mention of the elephant in the room?
Exactly !
What's that?
Dianne Abbott?
In Norfolk, the County Council has enforced a "levy" (meaning a Tax) on Housing Developers this Levy is to Pay for Taxying children to School everyday. Yep, those that are forced to take out Mortgages must pay "in their mortgages" for children to be taken to School by Taxi everyday ! !
Socialism is all about making others pay. I could understand it if it was a tax on land's rise in value once it gets planning permission
It has always fascinated me that councils would rather hand wealth to random land owners than operate a land bank where they create wealth for the public good.
The housing problem is the result of upwards of a million people coming here each year...
As a blind guy, I think I have more of a chance of noticing this problem than the people in the iea.
There should be plenty for every one
@@chrislambert9435 "Let them eat cake"
@@Thorsted67 more matter less art
Are they contributing to the economy? If so and you lose them then will you be happy that services deteriorate further?
Is it just me that has noticed the amount of globes in the background of many media pieces, sinister?
It's quicker to download and flick through the paper than to listen to this.
I’m not a nimby, but it should be mandatory that if someone builds homes on a mass scale locally then they need to build a school and some health service facility. How can all these blocks of flats be built without extra schools being added? In which case it’s absolutely reasonable to block these homes being built. First you build the school then you build the homes.
Big difference between commercial market prices vs state at cost housing prices.
Translation - How a 1988 Paper *Proposed* Today's Housing Nightmare
Very Few people in the UK are aware of the new Laws, that is the Nutrient Neutrality requirements ! ! No new homes can be built until these requirements are fulfilled ! !
7:41 green belt not about protecting land about stopping towns merge. Real should make flood plains geen belt and none industrial farming land
The simple answer is that something is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.
What you are prepared to pay for a house is immaterial. It is what the banks are prepared to lend you to buy it.
During Blair’s time they encouraged banks to lend ever larger amounts via letting the banks set their own reserve ratios.
People’s asking price went up because people could pay it.
This is why land costs have gone up because house prices have risen making land with planning permission worth more than land without.
This is true. Availability of bigger and bigger mortgages is the thing driving house prices first and foremost, but immigration - too many people chasing too few houses also plays a role. The advent of the buy to let mortgage was in my opinion a bad idea, and they should be banned, making being landlords only possible to those with cash to finance it - as it was pre 90s
@@mw01908BTL isn't a problem, contrary to Londoner geezer theories we don't have a crisis of Landlord's but actually a lack of rental units.
We were always heading for a supply shock and price spike due to women working full time and their equal if not greater propensity to spend that income on housing while soaring divorce rates mean young people on the small house/flat side of the market are overbid. We just poured petrol on that fire with cheap money and immigration.
Nimbyism was nothing to do with planning nurds or was it recent. Anyone in there 60's or over will remember well the origins of not in my back yard as it was a scandal when Nichols Ridley objected to a new build that would block his view of the countryside. The press at the time had a field day and from then on, the term has been in common usage. So, I suggest Christian reconsider his source before making inaccurate statements.
It's really a culture of nimbism There are parts of America that do not have this culture really think they can tell you what to do in your own land. For example I am from suburban Boston Massachusetts one of the most nimby places in my county the average home cost is now $1.6 million! And if you actually look at the zoning regulations it's very similar to where I live now in the far north of upstate New York for the average home cost $110,000 get the average income is only 45% lower than Massachusetts. This place in New York technically has all the same zoning and environmental regulations on the books but it's very conservative and no one cares what you do on your own land so the laws never get enforced because local neighbors don't care what you do on your land.
Like the house I live in was built a few years ago on the farm I manage it cost us $58,000 and it's pretty well done pretty high-end actually We did most of the work ourselves never got any permit at all and it's on the main road. I actually asked all my neighbors if they ever got any permits to build a building a new house or anything everyone said no why would I do that It's my land lol. You want to go back to Massachusetts everyone thinks that is insane and they pull permits too rehab their bathroom. Lol
Wat a load of waffle. I could have saved you the trouble of this podcast. i've been an investor and housebuilder since 87. Our current problems are completely due to mass uncontrolled immigration over 10 million extra people in 20 years.
I don’t think we had that level of immigration 40 years ago?
Our current problems are completely due to parasitic land-hoarding and land-banking "investors" who treat housing as an "asset" and tenants as their personal ATMs.
Less than 2% of the UK land surface has been built upon with Houses, if the UK were to double its Housing Stock it would not take up 4% of UK land surface
Every now and again this is said as if small percentages are an argument. It is sort of like when feminists state the year then claim something ought to be the case because of it. 2% is bad, 4% is awful.
England taken as a country, would be the most populous advanced fully fledged nation on earth tied with S. Korea and ahead of Japan.
There are countries with higher population densities, all the advanced ones are city states micronations and islands (not countries in a comparable sense). The rest are overpopulated developing world hell holes (again, except S. Korea), get to 4% and you get to ride on top of trains and drink brown water....
@@CmdrTobs Yes, the 2% vs 4% argument is an very simplistic way of looking at it. It does not take into account what you would need to do to double the UK housing supply. Many places are just not suitable for building on, or if they did, nobody would want to live there. There is a reason that people all crowd into London despite it being overcrowded
@@mw01908 Indeed. The evidence is all around.
another thing caught my attention recently, the shear number of junctions on our motorways due to density. If you have driven elsewhere you'd realise how odd this is.
NIMBY . Not in my back yard.
Kinda late now innit?
Lever of Sunlight Soap built Pirt Phillip worker housing, a whole suburb out of a field. We can do that again. We have to push Governments to do this again.
Houses are too expensive. People have less children. Less working people in 20 years time. Top heavy demographics. Big hole in the budget. Higher taxes and immigration is the future. What a mess.
Aged Pension etc will probably cease at age 80 in coming years. Everyone will get to 60-80 (20 years). Then they will have to move in with family until Dementia arrives and pay 100% for that. It will take pressure if younger people so they may get services in the future. Or we can keep people going to 115 and younger people die from lack of sthelter, jobs or not marrying because what's the point?
Criticism
The IEA has been criticized for operating more like a lobbying operation than a think tank. Some have also complained that the IEA promotes extremist views and acts outside of charity regulations
The shortages & price hikes in Housing are caused by Government
Its very difficult to apply logic to the consequences of changes like these in policy. Its sometimes just complete common sense though.
In a word. Five paragraphs later.... waffling on and on... sigh. This dutch fellow isnt perhaps aware what in a word means.
Paddy, Government is causing "Shortages & Price Hikes"
Too many people have second homes. It is OK to own one. If you want a second, then you should rent, not buy.