|
|
|
|
|
|
by lhopki01
3415 days ago
|
|
|
Or that the private sector only caters to the top end of the market and will never cater to the the lower ends. Where do you get that the government didn't allow them to make up the shortfall? What you're claiming is that the planning permissions were tightened just enough so that despite twice the demand there was no real increase in housing built? Housing is something that is too important to leave to just market forces because it isn't really a market. Land is scarce and you can't import to make up the shortfall. Additionally the government has committed to providing housing for the less fortunate which means that they now have to pay market rents further inflating prices. Everyone is better off if they just go back to building houses. Just saying build in the green belt will not achieve much. It'll divert developers from building on brownfield and lead to even more of a sprawl than there currently is in cities like London. |
|
|
Planning permission is a thing. Again, do you have evidence that there is a significant number of planning permissions going begging that no one is applying for?
> What you're claiming is that the planning permissions were tightened just enough so that despite twice the demand there was no real increase in housing built?
Yes? I mean, it's pretty obvious that's what happened, right? It's right there in black and right when you graph it. There has been no radical increase in the granting of planning permissions.
> Housing is something that is too important to leave to just market forces because it isn't really a market.
Given the hash of it the government is making, I think there's a much stronger argument that it's too important not to leave it to the market. Something which, moreover, hasn't been tried; there's no functioning market due to the planning permission system.
Again, if you pass a law saying that needed houses cannot be built (which has been done), and then the houses aren't built (which they are not) how can you point fingers at anything except the law?
> they now have to pay market rents further inflating prices.
Only because they've choked off the supply. We don't complain about welfare inflating food prices, because we don't pass laws stopping farmers from growing food. Food is cheaper now than ever before, not despite the fact that food is supplied by market forces, but because of it.
> Everyone is better off if they just go back to building houses.
Or they could just let other people build houses. You know, like how every single country without a housing crisis does?
> Just saying build in the green belt will not achieve much. It'll divert developers from building on brownfield and lead to even more of a sprawl than there currently is in cities like London.
The government building houses will add to the sprawl too, of course.
But what really matters isn't who builds it or where, it's that units are built. And that means identifying restrictions and removing them.