From Housebuilder:
Shapps challenges housebuilders to embrace free market ideals
Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps has challenged housebuilders to embrace his new planning proposals and shake off the restraints of a "planned system".
Speaking at the NHBC's General Election Lecture series, Shapps confirmed his plans to give local communities (1) more power over new development in their area, an idea that the industry fears could cut off new homes supply.
But Shapps told the audience: "I can't believe that big housebuilders, instead of relying on their own wit and knowhow, want a planned system rather than a free market system."
1) 'Local communitities'? Is this how low the Tories have sunk, just parrotting NewLabourSpeak?
2) Uh, 'free markets', that would be the mechanism whereby people who'd like to buy a new house agree price and quantity with those who are prepared to supply them, yes? Free of intereference by The State?
While I don't particularly agree with 'national plans', what Shappsy is proposing is to give every Home-Owner-Ist a direct veto over any new development (a local council is much more sensitive to the Home-Owner-Ist lobby than a national government - and the homebuilders know that only too well).
So this is even further from the 'free market' than national planning - not forgetting that local councils are 'The State' and to the extent that they bow to the wishes of The Home-Owner-Ists, it is the Home-Owner-Ists who are exercising the powers of 'The State' and preventing a free market for new housing flourishing.
As to how existing home-owners could be compensated for the possible future fall in the rental value of where they live, without them losing any capital value, see this thought experiment.
Muh, Far Right
1 hour ago
9 comments:
There's a bit more to it than this...
The Tories are also proposing that 'central' government will offer a wedge of cash towards local services for every development that is approved.
So not as de-centralising or free-market as they are making out.
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2009/10/nimbys-or-yimbys.html
Quite. Either the guy is deliberately trying to muddy the waters or doesn't know what the free market is.
The Tories are even worse than Labour in this regard as they are more biased towards living near open land that's likely to be developed. They opposed the report that Labour commissioned which suggested building on a tiny part of London's greenbelt.
It's all done in the name of localism, which is of course complete nonsense. We don't work like that or we'd not have any power stations or airports because no-one would want one near them.
And when it comes to greenbelts, the local people shouldn't get a choice. Greenbelts are about the residents of the urban area having green space to go to, so they should choose.
You know, when I see Homeownerist used in various contexts, Mark, I'm less able to comprehend what you really mean.
Do you mean that anyone who took a mortgage and got on the housing ladder, paying through the nose each month is a Homeownerist and is therefore a bad person?
On 2) it would be free'er if the big developers did not have the power to so easily corrupt the local planning authority. Yes the LPA do pander to the HO's too. But in what proportion? It would seem about 10/90 in favour of the developer. State interferes 10%, developer 90%
Disagree? Evidence please! I have loads supporting my view. For starters all the housing that is demanded by central always gets built. Only that because of the HO's, on the other side of town. I have more that I'm not prepared to reveal here sorry.
A local authority, in a working system (which ours is not*), will bow to the wishes of its voters, not all of whom are Home Owners - indeed in some areas these will definitely be in a minority.
And even where Home Owners are in a majority they won't all be ultra-nimby "HomeOwnerists".
And where those ultra-nimbyists are the majority, they are in fact the local people, as much as one can measure such a thing, so why should your views be favoured over theirs?
* not working because in many cases the seats are pretty safe, the voting is tribal, and a sitting party rarely loses power whatever it does.
WY: That's a bit like saying if murder were made legal because the majority wished it.. that would be all right then!
If the majority are, by natural right, wrong, then they are obliged, again by natural right, to compensate the minority
This is not in dispute by reasonable people. Avoid the idea and there will always be trouble
DS, well spotted, I have debunked that in the next post.
JT, good point on airports, power stations. You might add roads, railways, sewage works, factories etc to that list. Without the state to force these things through we'd still be living in the dark ages.
JH, see later post for answer to that.
RS, yes there is corruption involved, different topic.
WY says: "why should your views be favoured over theirs?"
Wot?
Most people like owning their own home - that is the majority view, not my view in particular. However, unlike the Home-Owner-Ists, I also think it is better for people to be able to buy a house without taking on a lifetime of debt. Part of the solution is to allow more new houses to be built.
Most NIMBYs already own a home or two, which must have been built on what was once fields, so it is rank hypocrisy to just pull up the drawbridge and convert what ought to be a free market into a pyramid scheme.
a local council is much more sensitive to the Home-Owner-Ist lobby than a national government - and the homebuilders know that only too well
I wouldn't dispute that this is a true statement now. However it could change over time. In the past, local councils sought to out-build each other in new homes. The idea that new builds were a good thing was accepted and NIMBYs were not dominant.
Clearly, the situation has changed but it could reverse again in the future. Perhaps when parents get sick of stay at home 30 year olds.
TDK, exactly. My dream is that one day instead of the local newspapers being full of angry letters from NIMBYs complaining about new developments, they will be full of angry letters from disgruntled parents complaining that because of restrictive planning laws, their adult children can't afford to leave home and buy their own home in the area.
Post a Comment