Thursday, 15 January 2015

Outrage

"Developer's advert boast sparks outrage" says the article in the Evening Standard.


So it should; private developers profiting from public expenditure on transport without contributing a penny. That's outrageous!

Oh, wait, that's not what the outrage is about, it's about the fact that they haven't provided any "social housing". Private profit at public expense doesn't even get a mention.

I suppose that's the norm these days...

6 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

'greed.

Random said...

There are properties with "Council Tax included" in the rent. WTF? Council tax incidence rests on the landlord. It is payable whether he has a tenant or not. If a landlord could charge more, they would already. Also says "no smokers or benefits"

adamcollyer said...

To be fair, the developers would have paid something in Section 106 contributions for the development.

Bayard said...

"Council tax incidence rests on the landlord."

Council tax is paid by the occupier, i.e. the tenant in the case of a rented property. Theirs is the name on the bill. Of course, it is ultimately paid by the landlord, but he is not the person the bailiffs will come looking for if it is not paid, unless the property is empty, in which case his would be the name on the bill. I suspect this is a case of a landlord attempting to offer reduced rents without appearing to do so.

AC, but not necessarily anything like the uplift in rental values caused by Crossrail.

Random said...

But it is an advantage for tenants to vote for council tax increases. Especially since it reduces house prices, making it easier to be owner occupiers.

Bayard said...

Random, an increase in council tax will only reduce rents in the long term. In the short term, the tenant has to pay more. The rent is unlikely to be reduced until the property has been vacated and advertised at the original rent and remained empty for an appreciable time. Most people think that rents can only go up, which means that the tenant is unlikely to do anything that would increase their outgoings and the landlord is unlikely to reduce the rent. Ricardo's Law is an economic law, not the law of the land!