Say 'No' to knocking down Rowan's

Arkady · March 2014

All that could still happen. But there would be less pressure, and so costs would be lower (or would rise slower). It's basic, uncontroversial supply and demand. It's a theory in the same way that gravity or evolution is a theory.

[Deleted User] · March 2014

The user and all related content has been deleted.

yagamuffin · March 2014

But why do it that way around @Arkady? What not build new homes that people earning £30000, £40000, £50000 a year can afford to buy. Then the chain reaction will work in the opposite way. The homes those people were renting will be available for the people in cheaper homes and their homes will in turn be available for those people in the cheapest, grottiest homes. And all without the Council having to pay to build any new homes and therefore without making Council Tax even higher than it already is.

yagamuffin · March 2014

I really don't see why we need council owned ghettos at all. In my experience every single 'Council Estate' turns in to a shit hole. Why not sell all existing council owned homes as well as building more homes for general sale then, when people find themselves in the position where they are unable to pay their rent the council can step in and help out until such a time as they get back on their feet.<div>The whole idea of being given a council house for life is pretty rank in my eyes.</div>

Arkady · March 2014

We should do that too. We need all sorts of housing, and lots of it.

Papa · March 2014

The fundamental problem is too many people trying to live in one part of the country, due to a dangerously geographically imbalanced economy - both at home and in Europe.<br><br>Combine that with a house price bubble that wasn't allowed to pop and you have a bit of a perfect storm right now.<br><br>Eventually, this should right itself. There will come a point where enough people take a look at the poor trade off between high housing costs in London and what in light of that is really for most a limited value extra employment opportunity and decide to live somewhere else instead, be that Manchester, Newcastle, Hull or Madrid.<br><br>Unfortunately, that is not really any consolation to any non-property owning Londoners being squeezed right now.<br><br>Ultimately, you would have to build an impossible number of homes in London to try and solve the problem that way.<br>

yagamuffin · March 2014

The thing is, I don't think it will right itself. As you point out, the housing bubble wasn't allowed to pop. The Government propped it up.<div>Unless the Government do something to deflate the housing market and also encourage businesses (other than the BBC) to move away from the South East nothing will change. And, it will get even worse with HS2 when it will be easier to base everything in London and just pop up to Manchester for meetings rather than having to have an office there.</div>

JoeV · March 2014

<p class="MsoNormal">Ok some things I've been thinking about:</p><p class="MsoNormal">Building more housing is not necessarily the solution to the housing crisis. Consider traffic on motorways, to relieve congestion, the conventional wisdom was to build more lanes. More lanes were built and they quickly became congested because the extra space encouraged more people to drive.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Can the same be said for housing? London’s population peaked in 1939, and is just now approaching that number. Is the ‘crisis’ now only because more people want to live here?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Maybe some of the smarter people, the ones who actually understand reports and proposals put out by the government can better articulate or debunk what I write below but two things the government can do right now to help relieve the housing crisis are:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt; font-size: 10pt;">1. Make it harder to get a buy-to-let mortgage, or at least make them subject to the same rules as individuals who buy homes to live in.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt; font-size: 10pt;">2. Enact legal protections to give tenant in the private rentals market more protections.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If private rental tenants, the people making 30-50K, were given more rights and protections they would feel secure in their homes and: <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">--not feel forced into shared ownership schemes that are skewed toward developers and banks. This would be an incentive to lower prices and offer better terms to lure them back into the market, or if government subsidies were cut, the developers would retain the flats and offer them as rentals, thus increasing supply to the rental market.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">--lower the demand for buy-to-let properties because right now, prospective landlords receive maximum gain with little to no effort or responsibility. Making landlords more accountable may provide a disincentive and perhaps lower demand allowing more properties to be bought by local buyers to live in.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It seems to me that tax laws, government subsidies and banking practices play a big part in driving up prices, not only demand. <o:p></o:p></p>

Arkady · March 2014

I would support both proposals, Joe.

Sutent · March 2014

Joe both sound like credible ideas. But can the government really restrict people buying and letting properties out. I don't know enough about this. Like the energy companies monopoly the answers to the problem is to allow more competition rather than regulate

yagamuffin · March 2014

<font face="Arial, Verdana" style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;">I would agree with @JoeV "</font><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">tax laws, government subsidies and banking practices play a big part in driving up prices, not only demand"</span><div style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-family: Arial, Verdana; line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: 'lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif; line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br></span></div><div style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">I would also add this though. In reference to the population reaching the peak of 1939, I think it is a lot different now.</span></font></div><div style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">It used to be that children stayed at home with their parents until they got married, they then moved in together and had children who themselves stayed at home until they got married and set up home with their spouse and had children.</span></font></div><div style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Today, people have children and then split up, where before the two parents occupied one house for all of their adult life after marriage they are now occupying two houses. The children are no longer staying at home until they get married but are moving out as soon as they can. There are a lot more people today living alone.</span></font></div><div style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;"><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 20.799999237060547px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The population numbers may be similar to those of 70 years ago but the number of homes they require is higher.</span></font></div><div><font face="lucida grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="2"><span style="line-height: 20.799999237060547px;">And before anyone jumps on this I am not (here at least) offering opinion on how people live their lives with regards to marriage and children!</span></font></span></font></div>

yagamuffin · March 2014

As for building more new homes I do wonder if it really is the answer. Maybe the first thing the Government should be doing is implementing punitive taxes on overseas home buyers and then on third and more domestic home buyers - having a second home as a buy to let is a good investment I would encourage - building a portfolio is not good for society as a whole.

Ali · March 2014

<P>Arkady</P> <P>Going back to the LibDem survey about Rowans and the voting intention questions. I would guess that the response may indicate people staying loyal as it it was sent to a self selected group who probably support the LibDems as they are on the list. Your right to say that the the LibDems are good at creating the impression that they are active locally sorting out all sorts of issues. It is done all around the country very effectively although I would caution that message fatigue may set in with the number times the "Newspaper" leaflet is sent out.</P> <P>It is good to hear your standing this time around as you may get the chance to implemnet some of the ideas which you have. Which Ward are you standing in ? I assume the LibDems are please that the council are freezing council tax for 4 years?</P> <P>I would think the answer to voting intentions in the General Election will be a bit more worrying as I suspect there will be a lot less LibDem MPs in what may be the final time there is a British (UK) parliament.</P> <P>The Cleggers Madrage debate will be interesting, don't quite get it why Cleggers wants to do this ?</P> <P>Also interesting what you say that we have UKIPers in the area</P> <P> </P> <P>Good luck with the campaign</P> <P> </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

Arkady · March 2014

Alii - sincere thanks for your generous response.<div><br></div><div>I wasn't actually speaking of the results of that survey per se, but our surveys in general, including some independent ones with very large samples indeed. Regrettably the details are not on the public record. As a general point I would say that the horrendous record of Haringey Labour has at least as big an impact as any national frustrations with the coalition. Despite the tough national conditions we are fighting to win the Council, as we came so close to doing last time.</div><div><br></div><div>Mr Pack is better qualified to talk about this than me, but any 'message fatigue' is far outweighed by the importance of getting the central messages across. All the data shoes this. No doubt *you* are fatigued by it! Certainly those of us who have to do the deliveries are - but civic duty calls, and all that.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm very proud to say that I will be standing in <a href="http://www.haringey.gov.uk/census11_stroud_green_ward_profile.pdf">Stroud Green ward</a> itself, alongside the distressingly hard-working Richard Wilson and Katherine Reece. I understand that Haringey Labour have selected three people to stand in the ward. Never heard or seen from any of them before, and no idea whether any of them are local (rare for them to be so in the past), but always cute to see Haringey Labour beginning to campaign here now the election approaches - they never bother doing any work here at any other time, shamefully.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, we are always flattered when Labour adopts our polices, though wearied by the consistency of their failure to admit that they are doing so or to apologise for previous failure. </div><div><br></div><div>Clegg-Farage. It's very much in Clegg's interest to do it. While the Lib Dems are disproportionately strong and retain great approval ratings in constituencies that they currently hold (a point always forgotten by those predicting a Lib Dem 'wipe-out' in 2015) we are currently flickering around 10-12% nationally. Compare this to well over 30% who are resolutely pro-EU. Given the continual dissembling about the EU from the other two parties, this means that it is entirely sensible for us to make our mark as the only fully pro-EU party. We are not specifically trying to appeal to the UKIP audience. We are appealing to our own.</div><div><br></div><div>No doubt there will be a Lib Dem social event at the Three Compasses to watch the debate - come join us and I will buy you a pint.</div><div><br></div><div>For the record, please don't imply that I have encountered many 'Kippers - I haven't. But I have still encountered more of them than Tories!</div>

Papa · March 2014

@joeV interesting points, two things.<br><br>1) There are two real differences with buy-to-let finance right now compared to residential mortgages. The first is you can still widely borrow interest-only, so payments are lower, the second is you can offset interest against your tax bill. Both are because buy-to-let is treated as a business. <br><br>2) I agree, as long as it doesn't fall into the realms of rent controls, which I don't think will work. But longer tenancies with inflation linked rent rises, I think that's a good idea. It would also be an idea to empower tenants to use existing rules better.<br><br>The inconvenient problem in bashing buy-to-let landlords for a housing crisis is that buy-to-let has increased the supply of places to live.<br><br>It is short-term gambling on the property market for political gain by both Brown and Osborne that has caused this mess.<br>

JoeV · March 2014

@PapaL - good points, but linking rent rises to inflation is essentially <span style="font-size: 10pt;">the same thing as rent control, no? - i.e. a legal restriction/regulation imposed on landlords to limit rent increases. </span><div><br></div><div>I wasn't intending to bash buy-to-let investors, but landlords need to shoulder more of the risk instead of it being shifted onto tenants and if buy-to let has increased the number of flat available, it's been at the expense of renters and individual buyers.<br><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">@Sutent - I didn't mean the government should restrict people buying and letting out properties but they can enact stronger rules and regulations that give tenants greater security.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">@Yagamuffin: You're right, I was going to mention change in demographics and that single-person households are at an all-time high and this is driving some (but not all) of demand but I was boring myself as I typed so didn't bother.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div>As a bloody foreigner, one of the aspects of the UK property market that many people from outside the UK find really bizarre is the concept of leasehold. I really don't understand why people would shell out huge amounts of money to buy what amounts to really a secure lease but it is what it is.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that's why renters have such a raw deal here. If rental regulations were strengthened it could kill the market for leasehold flats. </div><div><br><div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

ChangN4N6 · March 2014

The ladder is now a hot spot for 20 something professionals . 2 of my well paid mates have just bought there . For some reason they don't want to come to Lorne Rd! Chang

andy · March 2014

the price difference between lorne road and the ladder is pretty significant.

Papa · March 2014

@JoeV I didn't mean enforcing a rents linked to inflation system. I meant nudging landlords down that line. Make it easier to do long-term rentals with rents linked to inflation - through choice. <br><br>Currently, the assured shorthold tenancy system is not set up to encourage that and it actually breaks the terms on some mortgages to have tenancies over a certain length (this is slowly changing).<br><br>What most buy-to-let investors want is good tenants who stay and a nice steady yield rising in line with inflation. Void periods are the enemy. The current system encourages short-term thinking and landlords to not realise that chopping and changing tenants is bad news.<br><br>Landlords actually already shoulder a lot of risk. A highly leveraged investment involving tens of thousands of pounds in an illiquid asset. Hence the favourable tax treatment. <br><br>Tenants take on very little risk, beyond their deposit and that's been heavily tightened up in recent years - although they take far too long to get back. In return, they don't get much security.<br><br>Nudging the system down the route I highlighted above shifts some risk away from landlords and some more onto tenants - in return for the latter getting a better deal.<br><br>Buy-to-let has meant more homes for people to rent. The easier opportunity to invest in property, has brought more places into the rental market that would potentially have sat empty when owned by institutions or old-style legacy landlords who undervalued them and left them mothballed. Classic case in point is shops above flats.<br><br>Of course, as you point out it also arguably means less supply for first-time and next-time buyers. <br>

Papa · March 2014

@crankyITguy Andy Nicely done, I almost laughed out loud at that change.<br>

andy · March 2014

almost? talk about damning with faint praise.

dion · March 2014

I didn't laugh. I thought it was condescending and patronising.

JoeV · March 2014

@PapaL I think you're discounting the risk tenants take on, which amount to more than a financial one. There is risk in renting a property, investing in an area, and then having your entire life uprooted, having to have your children change schools, move doctors, etc. because you're turfed out with two month's notice without reason or cause. There is an expense in having to move every year -- financial and emotional.<div><br></div><div><div>The laws protecting tenants are so weak and little enforced that it barely amounts to any protection at all. Plus there are <span style="font-size: 10pt;">managing agents to deal with which is another layer of b</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">ureaucracy and dishonesty.</span><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">For example, deposits are supposed to be protected. They are not. When I moved out of my last flat, which was managed by a well regarded estate agent, they attempted to charge me for damage in a flat that was already in very poor condition when I moved in as well as for cleaning. This was after I took two days off from work to scrub the place from top to bottom. I left it cleaner than when I moved in. It was like they felt entitled to the money because that's customary practice. It's not right.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">I agree that good landlords want tenants to stay, but I'm sorry to say in my experience, they are as in short supply as affordable housing. And I don't think you can nudge an industry without strong legal backing.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;">If the suggestion or goal is to link rent increases to inflation there has to be a law stating so. As for longer tenancies, there's nothing in the law now as far as I understand that limits the length of a lease. If landlords value good tenants, they would be out front taking the lead on these issues -- they are not -- hence the call for changes in the law to force them.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div><div><br></div><div><div><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div></div></div>

yagamuffin · March 2014

Another point with managing agents. It is in their interest to have a high turnover of tenants as they are making huge amounts of money with non-refundable deposits etc weverytime new tenants move in.

andy · March 2014

JoeV always writes such sensible stuff.

Papa · March 2014

@joeV I see your point but it is difficult to quantify emotional risk like that. The flipside is a lot more flexibility, tenants can easily move for work, family, financial reasons etc. It's one reason why encouraging people to buy at a very young age is actually quite counter productive. Moving across the country for work is a lot harder and more expensive if you own a place.<br><br>The deposit thing highlights my point that existing rules are not being enforced properly. The current deposit rules are pretty tough, they are being applied really badly. <br><br>If we're quantifying risk, remember a tenant who has paid a £1,500 deposit can very easily cause a lot more damage that that.<br><br>[A tip: tenants moving into a property should get their phone or camera out and take pictures of everything. Takes ten minutes and then they can head off at the pass, a lot of agent and landlord dishonesty. Landlords should do the same.]<br><br>There's no law limiting tenancy lengths. It is in most existing buy-to-let mortgage contracts. Landlords doing long lets would be breaking their contract. They could have their debt called in at a moment's notice - and they can't complain as buy-to-let mortgages are unregulated.<br><br>I don't agree with a rent control law, I think we need to get rid of legislation not bring more in. <br><br>I think longer tenancies and inflation-linked rents are enough in landlords' interests that you could shift towards that. The government putting a little effort into getting mortgage lender accord, a framework and some sample tenancy agreements on gov.uk would go a long way.<br><br>Don't forget not all letting agents are part of the axis of evil. Some are good - and know that if you want to build up a sustainable business then steady income from management fees is what you want - not diddling people on extra charges. <br><br>Get a good tenant in for three years and you've just delivered a 36-month guaranteed income stream. So actually, this is in agents' interests too.<br>

Papa · March 2014

@crankyITguy - I'm in an office. I need to be careful about laughing out loud at the computer.<br>

JoeV · March 2014

@PapaL - What you say is all very reasonable, except I don't see evidence of it being practised in the real world and I go back to my last point - why aren't landlords and managing agents at the front to reform the system and implementing some of your suggestions? <div><br></div><div>I get exasperated at this line of argument that promotes private renting as a lifestyle choice and the benefit of it being so flexible, when in fact it's only a choice for the people who can afford to buy. The rest of us have to lump it.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you know in all the flats that I have lived in I have never met or spoken to the owner of the flat. The only contact I have had was through managing agents. In the flat I live now, the supposed landlord came to fix something but I'm actually not sure he owns the flat since his name is not the same as the one on my lease. The whole system is so deliberately obscure, which in my opinion encourages abuse.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes, some tenants are a rotten lot but if a landlord can't handle the risks of the property game, then maybe she or he or it should reconsider their line of work. <div><br></div><div>Life requires everyone to have a place to live, no one is forced to become a landlord, so though I have some sympathy for the good ones who get stuck renting to some very awful, destructive people, the rules of the private rental game here are broken and need to be fixed.</div></div><div><br></div><div>@Andy aka crankyITguy - (blush) aw shucks, thanks, though I haven't yet mastered the subtlety of British irony so maybe that should be 'thanks?'</div><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><br></div>

Papa · March 2014

@joeV I will admit all reason goes out the window in the London rental market. Thus any theory put forward, such as mine, can be poleaxed at will.<div><br></div><div>But London right now and in recent years is the bubbliest of bubbles and I'm not sure you should legislate based on that. Better to let it pop.</div><div><br></div><div>Landlords aren't a weird evil species though, they are just like you and me. Hug one.</div>

Ali · March 2014

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">This has got it about right</font><div style="font-family: Arial, Verdana; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><br></div><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/09/ondon-city-money-greed-inequality-housing-global-super-rich</font></div><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2"><br></font></div>

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Top Posters

Say 'No' to knocking down Rowan's

Comments