NIMBY Maths

The Labour government did their level best to keep new construction to a minimum, although the hard core NIMBYs still complained bitterly that 45,000 new houses had been built on previously undeveloped land in ten years (that's an addition of about 0.2% of the total UK housing stock), which, by some miracle of NIMBY maths used up 30,000 acres of land.

This sits uneasily with the fact that modern build densities are around ten or fifteen homes per acre, so either about 400,000 new homes were built on greenfield land; or those additional 45,000 houses used up 4,000 acres. One or the other, not both, and the former seems to be more likely.

By a further miracle of NIMBY DoubleThink, they want as little land to be used as possible; but when builders respond by cramming in loads of houses with small gardens, the NIMBYs then say "We told you so! New houses are rubbish because their gardens are so small! We'd have been better off not building them at all! Young families should live in tents, or move abroad and wait patiently until an existing house comes up for sale, just like we did when we were young!"

To put that all in perspective, if it is true that 30,000 acres of greenfield land were used up, that means that developed areas increased by half a per cent over ten years, which is hardly dramatic; or alternatively that 0.06% of hitherto undeveloped land was built on which is within the bounds of statistical error.

Of course, if the NIMBYs see land as somehow part of our common heritage, then would it not be fair to levy some sort of user charge on those who use it for their own selfish purposes, i.e. having a roof over their heads..?

Just sayin', is all.