There's an article in The Onion's compilation book Our Dumb Century called "Cambodia switches to skull-based economy" (I can't find it online).
I'm always reminded of it when I see crap like this:
That new homes bonus could have netted North Somerset Council something in the region of £80m for the South West Urban Extension. But its deputy leader, Elfan Ap Rees, says all that money would have made no difference.
"The greenbelt is more important than money," he says. "Clearly in some areas of the country more homes will get built and there will be local people who really want new houses. I have to say it's the complete opposite here. For a long time, people have been saying here that they're fed up with all this residential development swamping us."
I'm at a loss to make sense of this.
If all NIMBYs lived in tents or caravans and said there was no need for houses in their area, then that would be intellectually coherent*. But if somebody who lives in a house says that other people don't need houses, it just doesn't add up. And who on earth wants to buy a house other than 'a local person'? Doesn't somebody become 'a local person' the minute he buys a house and moves in to it? If it is true that 'local people' don't want houses, then everybody who bought a house would promptly have it demolished, surely?
What have I missed?
* To give an example, there are strict vegans who oppose all animal husbandry, vivisection etc. They don't want anybody else to eat meat and they would refuse to be treated with drugs tested on animals. Whether or not you agree with this viewpoint (and I don't) at least they mean what they say and I have a grudging respect for them.
The CPS Loses Yet Again...
36 seconds ago
11 comments:
I'm an extreme localist. Children whose parents own a house must live in that house's garden. Yea, even unto the nth generation.
'But what about those who live in flats?' I hear you say. Easy. Just add more storeys.
C'mon MW - What you have missed is that is far too high an intellectual argument to use against an opposition comprising politicians and bureaucrats!
When do I get to decide to dig up all the roads from the villages south of me that are currently travelling through MY area? Or perhaps charge a toll for travelling on it?
If these people can dictate how land around where they live is used (even if they don't own it) then so should I. Cut the bastards off from the rest of society and see how long they like their fully ruralised society.
'Elfan Ap Rees'?
Not perhaps 'Elfan Saif Tee'?
'Grass economy' sounds like a flanking manoeuvre by your cud munching antagonists in the Bovine Liberation Front? They must be stopped.
Doesn't somebody become 'a local person' the minute he buys a house and moves in to it?
He did when I was learning the English language.
OP, VFTS, wake up at the back!
NIMBYs are selflessly "preserving the greenbelt for future generations and to ensure food security". And we can't allow kids to knock up a shack in parents' back garden because that is "garden grabbing".
WFW, I don't think 'the government' is too bothered one way or another how much gets built, it's politicians chasing the NIMBY/Greenie vote who started all this.
JT, good point about tolls. "Toll" is another word for "tax", but isn't all rent from land akin to a toll, i.e. isn't all land rent just privately collected tax?
Ch, good point. You'd think that people would want to be as far away from the greenbelt as possible for Elfan Ap Safetee reasons.
JH, that was my understanding as well, but like I say, we seem to have missed something.
Luckily, in North Somerset, nobody wants a new house. In fact, the complete opposite. They mostly want all existing houses (except their own of course) knocked down to enhance the natural beauty of the Green and Pleasant land they inhabit.
Their own children, of course, will inherit their own humble stone-built mansions when they pass on, and will be able to enjoy the magnificent views untroubled by annoying neighbours.
And England shall be forever exactly the same as it was in the housebuilders' brochures when they bought those houses themselves.
It was all so much better 300 years ago.
Isn't this local democracy at work? The majority want no new houses built, so their elected representatives refuse government bribes to build new houses. Good for them. Anyone wanting a house in North Somerset had better buy an old one or look elsewhere and why not, it's not as if North Somerset is very large, you could drive to most places in NS from outside in a matter of minutes. If the NS folk want to live in a NIMBY ghetto, then why shouldn't they? There are plenty of houses in nearby Bristol.
B, as AC suggests, this isn't 'local democracy' at all, it is Blue Socialism.
Or else why not give 'local neighbourhood groups' the right to decide who is allowed to own a car, citing "Pressure on local parking spaces"? Or let them decide how many babies women on their estate are allowed to have, citing "Pressure on local nursery places"?
And the NIMBYs in Bristol don't want any more houses built either, pointing (quite reasonably) at the vast open spaces of N Somerset, and so on.
"B, as AC suggests, this isn't 'local democracy' at all, it is Blue Socialism."
Well, Mr Elfan Safety is deputy head of North Somerset Council, which is what passes for local democracy in this country.
Anyway, with an almost static population, why do we need any new houses anyway? You know very well that it is not the lack of housebuilding that has forced up house prices to unrealistic levels. If it wasn't for that, the Thatcherite myth of the absolute benefit of being a home-owner, and the other myth that property is the infallible investment, there wouldn't be a huge demand for new houses. People would see them for what they are - a depreciating asset, like a car.
If the lack of new housing forces people with "key skills" to move away from North Somerset, or not go there in the first place, who suffers? - the people of North Somerset, who caused that lack in the first place. Why should we care?
B, yes, in practical terms, we've plenty of housing for everybody (mass immigration = separate topic).
The problem is that a select few are hogging it all. If they aren't prepared to trade down (LVT would sort this out, of course - while bricks and mortar are a depreciating asset, land is very much an appreciating asset), then a distant second best solution is to keep building new stuff and to hope for the best.
Post a Comment