Saving Pubs / Housing People

[Tim Lund]

Just watched a good programme on BB2 about house overbuilding has destroyed Spain. Do we want it to happen here.

Builders are sitting on land . They are not building because people cannot afford to buy. Simple economics.

It's a good point, but this is where the economics becomes a little less simple. If it was just a question of people not being able to afford to buy, prices should adjust downwards. I think you are right in saying that the builders are 'sitting on land', which I take to mean having more in their 'land banks' than they are actually developing. In this, they are acting speculatively, in much the same way that many ordinary people have speculated on eternally upwards property prices when pushing the boat out to get on the ladder. Was this sensible, is it still, will it always be so? Well, in an era of economic growth and inward migration, and continually tightening housing supply, thanks to all the various restrictions on development, it was sensible, but I'm not sure that it is still. But whatever the past rights and wrongs, in the future, keeping the supply tight now will be seen as another way in which wealth is retained by those who already have, and denied to generations to come.

[Eagle]

Tim
See your argument and do not totally disagree but surely no point in building houses no one can afford to buy.

It is acknowledged we as a country cannot subsidise anymore social housing. Saw Greyhound Devolopment today in its full splendor. However I understand all social housing.

Not sure what the solution is but perhaps New Labour ought to have thought of this before they opened the doors.

[Tim Lund]

Tim
See your argument and do not totally disagree but surely no point in building houses no one can afford to buy.

It is acknowledged we as a country cannot subsidise anymore social housing. Saw Greyhound Devolopment today in its full splendor. However I understand all social housing.

Not sure what the solution is but perhaps New Labour ought to have thought of this before they opened the doors.

The solution is in Longton Grove, number 18. You have there a developer who thinks there is a point in at least 'adding habitable rooms', and with some reservations, my feeling is 'good on them'. It's how markets work - they allow people to have different views.

One reason I like to quote the 18 Longton Grove example is that if in general it is accepted that this sort of development is OK, then why not more? If developers felt confident that such conversions would be approved, without having to wait years, with the associated risk of bankruptcy, then maybe they could buy up similar properties when they come on the market, and repeat the trick. You really wouldn't need too much more of this across London to get prices down, without it having to be 'social' housing, because once people know the artificial barriers to supply are removed, prices will adjust down quickly. Developers with land banks will have to take the hit to their balance sheets, but their earnings will pick up strongly, as with prices bottomed out, more people will feel confident about buying.

And just in case anyone has lost the point of the OP, allowing such developments would take the pressure off sites such as The Perry Hill, The Greyhound, The Catford Hill Tavern, The Baring Hall Hotel, The Rutland Arms, The Tiger's Head, The Forest Hill Tavern and another 50 listed in Appendix 2 of this report from Lewisham

As it says on page 6

CAMRA maintain that, particularly in areas of high land values, pub closure is not always the result of commercial failure of the pub but the attractiveness of the site for redevelopment, often for residential use.

I can't believe the Councillors disagree with this point, but politics mean that grandstanding on saving traditional pubs gets better headlines than finding places for people to live - another fine example, if I may say so, of the values of the older generation being unthinkingly put ahead of the younger. Or maybe not so unthinkingly, since older people are more likely to vote.

Additionally, more habitable rooms and more people would also mean more custom for the pubs (and other local businesses), and if, thanks to lower housing costs people have more disposable income, then that will help business too. If anyone does feel threatened by too much new housing being 'social', then they have a further reason for wanting to free up the supply of private housing.

[Weeble]

It is acknowledged we as a country cannot subsidise anymore social housing .

Is it? Many would argue that it's rather short sighted not to. More and more people on benefits and low incomes are renting privately and are having to claim housing benefit to cover the rent - so the tax payer is just forking out more in the long run in benefit payments which just ends up in the pocket of buy-to-let landlords.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Sounds like Churchill after WW2.

[Tim Lund]

It is acknowledged we as a country cannot subsidise anymore social housing .

Is it? Many would argue that it's rather short sighted not to. More and more people on benefits and low incomes are renting privately and are having to claim housing benefit to cover the rent - so the tax payer is just forking out more in the long run in benefit payments which just ends up in the pocket of buy-to-let landlords.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think the question of whether new housing is 'social' or not is another way people get distracted from the main question, which is what is the best way to get more supply. Unfortunately, in our rather class-ridden society, it's something people do latch on to. In the long run it really shouldn't matter; actual housing can and does move both ways between the private and public sector. I don't demonise buy-to-let landlords either, although I'd think twice about becoming one given that the value of my investment is vulnerable to the related threats of (1) the need to control the welfare budget reducing 'demand' for housing, and (2) the possibility of increase supply. After all, buy-to-let landlords are financing places for people to live, and will be subject to various regulations, so should not all be thought of as latter day Rachmans. There will be some good landlords among them, and some bad, and even among the good landlords' tenants, some who'll complain unreasonably. Given there is a such a strong cultural disposition to look for the forked tails and cloven hooves on landlords, many people's presumption will be that the poor tenant is always being done down.

I don't know if the 250 homes mentioned in the OP which the hi-viz Steve Bullock is so proud of are all 'social', but I suspect they are; when I have raised the issue of housing with Councillors, discussion has turned automatically to social housing. It's as if they cannot conceive of the private sector being part of the solution. In any case, I'd be interested to know how many new homes in Lewisham have been created by the private sector, and how many in the social sector, but I don't have time to research this at the moment.

As I have written before on this Forum, if you want to control Housing benefit - which I do - it is far better to remove the need for it by getting the price of housing down. As to the whether new housing is 'social' or not, I would just want to know who are the best landlords, and I would have no ideological hang up about including local authorities, housing associations or private sector landlords in such as survey.

An example of someone with such a hang up, I would say, is the Nick Long whose letter to the Observer this Sunday I referred to earlier. It is possible that this is the same Nick Long who is involved with Lewisham People Before Profit, whose advertised conference on housing I flagged up here, but heard nothing more of, even though I asked for more details. Apparently the event did go ahead, according to an article Who Dares Wins! Occupying for Housing Justice by John Hamilton writing here in the New Left Project.

This article also sheds light on Steve Bullock's figure of 250 homes:

Since the initial occupation in February, the Mayor and council have announced plans to build 250 council homes in various vacant sites dotted around the borough – not a vast number considering that there are around 400 families in hostels or bed and breakfast accommodation, but this will be the first new council house building in the borough for over 30 years.

[Eagle]

Weeble

I agree to subsidise half the populace with housing benefits etc is stupid and unaffordable,

Need to with draw all housing benefit. Result rents and property prices would dive. Then young people could afford to buy.

[Tim Lund]

Weeble

I agree to subsidise half the populace with housing benefits etc is stupid and unaffordable,

Need to with draw all housing benefit. Result rents and property prices would dive. Then young people could afford to buy.

And where might they be buying - even renting - if the supply of housing isn't expanded?

[Tim Lund]

I just came across a report to Mayor and Cabinet from January this year, "Housing Challenges and Opportunities" which sets out some of the background to these issues



There are various points which could be made, and if time allows will be. But here is just one:

developments which were marginally viable during the years of price inflation are no longer viable in this period of economic uncertainty, or they are commercially viable only if expectations for the provision of affordable housing are reduced.

from which I think we can conclude that requirements for 'affordable' housing is restricting the overall supply, so making housing overall less affordable.

The report also helps answer a question raised in the OP, 'how far does [250 new homes] go to meeting the shortage of housing', to which the answer would appear to be 'a bit less that 25% of what is needed each year for the next 15'.

[Eagle]

Tim
I know you are very well meaning in trying to build over South East Britain, but surely even you must admit there has to be a finite population .
This is a very difficult problem and there is no right or wrong just degrees of grey.

How about we start by pulling down all houses in Hall Drive and building Tower Blocks. That may help, but where are the jobs in the locality for all these extra people.

Unless one is housing retired people one should only build where there are jobs , or easy access to jobs.

[Tim Lund]

Tim
I know you are very well meaning

Gee, thanks, Eagle ...

in trying to build over South East Britain,

but you know full well that is not what I want.

[14BradfordRoad]

Tim
I know you are very well meaning in trying to build over South East Britain, but surely even you must admit there has to be a finite population .
This is a very difficult problem and there is no right or wrong just degrees of grey.

How about we start by pulling down all houses in Hall Drive and building Tower Blocks. That may help, but where are the jobs in the locality for all these extra people.

Unless one is housing retired people one should only build where there are jobs , or easy access to jobs.

Build where there are jobs: Now that is another grey area too!

Agree with your line of thinking though...

[Eagle]

Thanks Mrs Bradford

Not sure how it is a grey area.

Seems logical to build houses for people of working age only where jobs are or easy access to jobs.
Otherwise logically how can they afford a house , either to buy or rent.

[14BradfordRoad]

I meant that the availability of 'right type of jobs' for an area is the 'grey area' bit of the
equation! We don't always know where the future jobs will be. Buying is a long term
comittment so the jobs will have to be worthwhile finacially and long term enough to finance
a mortgage comittment or to pay for high rents.
I say high rents because an area of high employment could eventually become lucrative
to the point of pushing prices up due to higher demand, so possibly an element of being self defeating in some ways too in solving housing problem in an affordable way.
I remember in 1980's and 90's many workers in London moving down to Medway towns for
cheaper, affordable properties and commuting because the work and higher wages were in
London, you may have noticed this too! Wages are still generally lower near Medway towns
(only one example) than than when closer to London so type of work and earning potential
could also be a factor (the grey area )..

I do generally agree Eagle but the figures have to add up too..

[Robin Orton]

Unless one is housing retired people one should only build where there are jobs , or easy access to jobs.

Sounds a bit dirigiste to me, Eagle. Who would decide whether 'there were jobs or easy access to jobs' in a particular area? Another bit of Stalinist bureacratic regulation? What's wrong with the free market? Surely developers will build if and only if they think there is sufficient demand for them to be able to sell or rent at a profit.

[simon]

Another problem Eagle is that there is very little work about at present, but there is also a housing shortage. The state of the employment market has depressed wages and damaged confidence, which, rightly, puts people off taking out massive mortages to buy overpriced housing.
Lewisham has the highest proportion of all London boroughs of people who work outside of the borough. Thats because there are no jobs in Lewisham. However, it is well placed for people to commute to work elsewhere and because it has some of the lowest house prices in London, housing built here is more affordable, or at least less unaffordable.
We have long waiting lists for social housing so I say lets build more housing in Lewisham, but not where the Greyhound should be.

[Tim Lund]

Unless one is housing retired people one should only build where there are jobs , or easy access to jobs.

Sounds a bit dirigiste to me, Eagle. Who would decide whether 'there were jobs or easy access to jobs' in a particular area? Another bit of Stalinist bureacratic regulation? What's wrong with the free market? Surely developers will build if and only if they think there is sufficient demand for them to be able to sell or rent at a profit.

I think Eagle exposes the contradiction which was always at the heart of Thatcherism. On the one hand it was raw politics - asserting an identity and doing down the enemy within and abroad. On the other hand, it was about setting people free, and letting their multiple individual choices be the very market forces to deliver what economics says it does - even if some livelihoods get destroyed as others are created. Conservatives who think too much in the first way, when threatened by other people coming to live in 'their' space, react instinctively to restrict these aliens' freedoms, and so undermine the other aspect of Thatcherism.

Was that high-minded enough for you, Nigel?

[CaptainCarCrash]

Thanks Mrs Bradford

Not sure how it is a grey area.

Seems logical to build houses for people of working age only where jobs are or easy access to jobs.
Otherwise logically how can they afford a house , either to buy or rent.

We need a few more new towns with decent transport links. Keeping things the way they are is crazy, maybe some bright spark will build a case regarding the manipulation of housing and present it to the ECHR?

I remember a few years ago the media ran with the headline that asylum seekers get housed in properties no-one else wants? I think it was in the Times, where the editor of the day was in fact an asylum seeker?

[Eagle]

Problem with areas like Lewisham no large scale business would contemplate moving there because of terrible road links.
We are always going to have an exodus of workers to Central London and other boroughs. The jobs in Finance are going down fast ( which should please some of the socialist members on this Forum ).
Of course it matters that people can get jobs,society cannot support countless millions doing nothing.
Would be interesting if someone has done a survey of the households who have moved into the new devolopment at Bell Green.
For instance where are they working? If not working why? etc etc.

[simon]

Eagle, I would be interested to know how you think the unemployed should be housed? After all there 2.5 million of them and some of them have families. There are also over 8 million people working part time, many of whom would rather work full time, and they cannot afford market rents or house prices.