George Ward evicted.

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

Agreed that all the problems you list are political, and many have got far worse in the last 13 years of Tory rule -- but if problems are made politically, they can also be fixed politically. The problem is getting a government into power with the will to do this, which is difficult but not impossible, especially given the mess the Tories are in right now.

 

But there's no way the canals can make even the tiniest dent in the massive housing problem; the shortage of affordable housing affects many millions of people, and even if you filled every honeypot area on the canals where boaters want to live with wall-to-wall boats moored two deep this wouldn't even help 1% of the people in need. It's the other 99% who need a real solution, and that's housing not canal boats.

 

Getting the water out of canals and building ecohomes might work. 

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

and even if you filled every honeypot area on the canals where boaters want to live with wall-to-wall boats moored two deep this wouldn't even help 1% of the people in need. It's the other 99% who need a real solution, and that's housing not canal boats

If you wanted to use the canals in honeypot areas to house the maximum number of people you would fill them in and build blocks of medium or high rise apartments. And that new housing would be delivered by the same mechanisms as every other new housing development. And with exactly the same effect on those at the bottom of the housing ladder, and minimal impact on the wider housing situation.

[magnetman]

I'd love to see the look on the faces of people who bought a flat with a 'canal view' when they find another block of nondescript apartments outside their balcony. 

 

Rude but funny. 

[Tonka]

42 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

You are right.  

 

I'd ban multiple property ownership for a start. Nobody needs more than one home. Its just greed pure and simple. 

 

However what we have in the real world is a system which rewards greed. I don't see this changing in a hurry ! 

 

It would be political suicide for an elected government to do something which makes people either feel poorer or actually be poorer. They just won't vote you back in. 

 

It is a self fulfilling greed driven system which would take enormous effort by very dedicated people to turn around. 

 

Tell Mr Joe Bloggs his house is going to be worth 30% less on two yars time and he isn't going to be happy is he.

 

So yeah. Pressure on land use and increasing population is a problem. This is due to the political systems we have ruling the place but can it change? No. 

 

 

So where do you get rented houses from if people can only own 1 house

[magnetman]

It is important to remember that canals would never need to be 'filled in'. A considerable number of yars ago someone was considerate enough to dig them out which makes it easy to have underground parking for the ev!

Just now, Tonka said:

So where do you get rented houses from if people can only own 1 house

There would be no need for private sector rented houses. 

 

 

 

 

Property prices would be massively lower if greed was taken out of the equation so normal people with normal lives could buy houses rather than being fucked by BTL scum. 

[Tonka]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It is important to remember that canals would never need to be 'filled in'. A considerable number of yars ago someone was considerate enough to dig them out which makes it easy to have underground parking for the ev!

There would be no need for private sector rented houses. 

 

 

 

 

Property prices would be massively lower if greed was taken out of the equation so normal people with normal lives could buy houses rather than being fucked by BTL scum. 

But you said you would ban multiple house ownership which includes councils and housing trusts

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But you said you would ban multiple house ownership which includes councils and housing trusts

I presume you knew I wasn't including local authorities ! 

 

Not that convinced by housing associations personally as they usually have a profit motive. 

 

I am sorry I was not more clear. I meant multiple property ownership by individuals. I will attempt to be more clear in future but you did know what I meant. 

 

 

 

Typo edit

Edited June 13, 2023 by magnetman

[kris88]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

As the CRT seem to like tinkering with the t&c for licences it seems to me they could do some interesting things.………..

 

…………….I know the t&c may be ultra vires but they still apply them to licence applications. I think this is where the CRT have some powers available to them. 

 

 

In my opinion this is where crt will become unstuck. Because any sensible legal challenge to crt usurping legislation with contract law will get upheld. It would probably  have to go to the highest court. But at the end of the day no judge is going to agree that the ceo of a third sector organisation has the ability to change legislation. Forget all your other arguments they are just distractions this is the core of the matter. 
 So if they crt get too creative with their t&c’s they will hasten the happening of this event. 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If you wanted to use the canals in honeypot areas to house the maximum number of people you would fill them in and build blocks of medium or high rise apartments. And that new housing would be delivered by the same mechanisms as every other new housing development. And with exactly the same effect on those at the bottom of the housing ladder, and minimal impact on the wider housing situation.

 

You would get more people "living on the canals" that way, but the number is -- as I think you meant -- still small compared to the need.

 

If you add up the lengths of all the canals in the "honeypot areas" where CMers congregate I doubt that this would come to more than 100 miles in the whole of the UK, probably considerably less. With 200 boats per mile double-moored this is 20000 boats maximum to completely fill up the system. Given that it's estimated we need *at least* 300,000 affordable new houses to be built *per year* (and for many years) to get anywhere close to meeting demand, canal boats just aren't a solution.

 

Even if it was possible to build multi-storey flats along all these canals across the entire width (which would take many years) -- which of course it isn't -- you might at best get the equivalent of 1 year of required housebuilding... 😞

 

The canals are simply not a solution to the UK housing problem.

[David Mack]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

The canals are simply not a solution to the UK housing problem.

Exactly!

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, kris88 said:

In my opinion this is where crt will become unstuck. Because any sensible legal challenge to crt usurping legislation with contract law will get upheld. It would probably  have to go to the highest court. But at the end of the day no judge is going to agree that the ceo of a third sector organisation has the ability to change legislation. Forget all your other arguments they are just distractions this is the core of the matter. 
 So if they crt get too creative with their t&c’s they will hasten the happening of this event. 

 

 

I still think they should try it out. 

[David Mack]

18 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There would be no need for private sector rented houses. 

There will always be people who need rented housing, and who won't necessarily come very high on the priority list for public sector/social housing - people who are only in an area for a short term and don't want to incur the costs and hassle of buying and selling, people whose credit record is not good enough for mortgage lenders, young people who don't feel ready to 'settle down' in one place with all the responsibilities of home ownership, people who have had a change of circumstances (e.g. divorce) and need short term accommodation while they sort other things out etc. So there will always be a need for a private rented sector.

The thing that people who say nobody should own more than one house never acknowledge is that a house rented out is still a house that is providing a home for somebody. And that is rather different from a house which is owned simply to rent out to holiday makers, or even kept vacant most of the time with only occasional holiday use by the owner and his family/friends. Those houses have been lost to the housing market.

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The canals are simply not a solution to the UK housing problem.

I wonder if anyone has done a survey of canal land (which does include towpaths) and put a value on it. 

 

I know people do like canals but priorities change over the yars and it could be useful brown field land especially in urban areas. 

[David Mack]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder if anyone has done a survey of canal land (which does include towpaths) and put a value on it. 

 

I know people do like canals but priorities change over the yars and it could be useful brown field land especially in urban areas. 

Most local authority planning policies view the canals and towpaths in their areas as assets to be protected for leisure, heritage, environmental and wellbeing reasons.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There will always be people who need rented housing, and who won't necessarily come very high on the priority list for public sector/social housing - people who are only in an area for a short term and don't want to incur the costs and hassle of buying and selling, people whose credit record is not good enough for mortgage lenders, young people who don't feel ready to 'settle down' in one place with all the responsibilities of home ownership, people who have had a change of circumstances (e.g. divorce) and need short term accommodation while they sort other things out etc. So there will always be a need for a private rented sector.

The thing that people who say nobody should own more than one house never acknowledge is that a house rented out is still a house that is providing a home for somebody. And that is rather different from a house which is owned simply to rent out to holiday makers, or even kept vacant most of the time with only occasional holiday use by the owner and his family/friends. Those houses have been lost to the housing market.

It's not whether the rented houses are privately or publicly owned that is the real issue, it's the lack of security and rent control and supervision of housing quality, and the fact that all this means that residential housing is seen as a cash cow (e.g. BTL, developers building "executive" homes not "affordable" ones) by many in the UK, so many (not all!) people invest in it without bothering with things like decent maintenance, and can kick tenants out when they want to sell on at a profit or raise the rent massively.

 

In other countries the sector is much more tightly controlled and regulated regardless of whether its publicly or privately owned, there is less money to be made in it so houses are seen more as places to live than investments -- which makes them less attractive to private landlords and more attractive to public ones, where the state is willing to invest to provide decent housing for its citizens.

 

Holiday homes and AirBnB are a plague in many popular areas of the UK and have effectively priced locals out of the market... 😞

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

There will always be people who need rented housing, and who won't necessarily come very high on the priority list for public sector/social housing - people who are only in an area for a short term and don't want to incur the costs and hassle of buying and selling, people whose credit record is not good enough for mortgage lenders, young people who don't feel ready to 'settle down' in one place with all the responsibilities of home ownership, people who have had a change of circumstances (e.g. divorce) and need short term accommodation while they sort other things out etc. So there will always be a need for a private rented sector.

The thing that people who say nobody should own more than one house never acknowledge is that a house rented out is still a house that is providing a home for somebody. And that is rather different from a house which is owned simply to rent out to holiday makers, or even kept vacant most of the time with only occasional holiday use by the owner and his family/friends. Those houses have been lost to the housing market.

Fair enough but it is getting a bit shit when a family who know where they want to live, can provide a deposit and have jobs are pushed out because the BTL scum seem more reliable to the lender. 

 

Maybe this is changing with interest hates going up.

 

It is when the lower end of the market which I think they call 'starter homes' is skewed towards the BTL that it winds me up. 

 

I have no concerns personally on this as the woman and children live in a council owned property and I live on boats. 

 

I still think it is wrong for people to profit from others basic needs such as housing. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

I still think it is wrong for people to profit from others basic needs such as housing. 

 

 

That's a bit like saying farmers shouldn't profit from providing food. The profit motive makes the world go round, nothing else does. It just needs to be regulated by the society it happens in, which is what we elect people to do, only mostly they can't be bothered to do their jobs.

CRT could profit from renting moorings, and while it wouldn't dent the housing problem as a whole, obviously, it might go some way to help those who either want to live on a boat, or can only afford to do so, and who either don't want to move, or need to stay for work.

[Tonka]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

Fair enough but it is getting a bit shit when a family who know where they want to live, can provide a deposit and have jobs are pushed out because the BTL scum seem more reliable to the lender. 

 

Maybe this is changing with interest hates going up.

 

It is when the lower end of the market which I think they call 'starter homes' is skewed towards the BTL that it winds me up. 

 

I have no concerns personally on this as the woman and children live in a council owned property and I live on boats. 

 

I still think it is wrong for people to profit from others basic needs such as housing. 

 

 

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

Profit as such isn't the problem even for basic human needs, so long as it's regulated and not excessive, delivers a good result, and the scales are not stacked heavily in favour of business profit (e.g. creaming off a big slice to shareholders and executives) and against the customer and the public sector (e.g. asking for government subsidies/tax relief).

 

Which is clearly not the case in the UK for privatised housing, water/sewage, public transport, electricity -- for these a state-controlled supplier (or heavily-regulated private sector) is better than leaving it to the free markets, as shown by most comparable countries who do a better job of these than the UK.

 

A perfect example of privatised profit and public risk is the UK water companies -- no competition (you can only get water from your local supplier), have paid over £60B out to shareholders instead of spending it on improving the infrastructure, and are now looking for a similar level of public subsidy to fix the sewage system because otherwise consumers will have to pay for it... 😞

 

52 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's a bit like saying farmers shouldn't profit from providing food. The profit motive makes the world go round, nothing else does. It just needs to be regulated by the society it happens in, which is what we elect people to do, only mostly they can't be bothered to do their jobs.

CRT could profit from renting moorings, and while it wouldn't dent the housing problem as a whole, obviously, it might go some way to help those who either want to live on a boat, or can only afford to do so, and who either don't want to move, or need to stay for work.

 

And there you have the UK problem in one sentence... 😞

 

(though it's often not that they can't be bothered, but tighter regulation would reduce the oodles of money they and their chums make by not having it...)

Edited June 13, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

 

OK. 

 

The food argument. 

 

Is there a shortage of food? Can you think of anyone who is financially stressed because they can't afford food? Yes. OK. Food banks. 

 

Yes there are some but not nearly as many as those who are basically stressed by having to pay someone else to use a house to live in. 

 

The effect on society as a whole caused by people having no security of dwelling is profound, long lasting and serious. 

 

Food is a daily requirement. It isn't all that expensive and if you don't get it you die. In fact it is very like beer. 

 

Housing is a basic need. Get people competing against each other and shit happens. 

 

 

 

 

[kris88]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

I still think they should try it out. 

I know you do. But then your an agent provocateur.

[Jerra]

17 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So is it OK to profit from basic needs like food for instance

I was wondering if it was OK to profit from supplying clean fresh water.  It is after all a very basic need which you can't do without for too long.

[Tonka]

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

OK. 

 

The food argument. 

 

Is there a shortage of food? Can you think of anyone who is financially stressed because they can't afford food? Yes. OK. Food banks. 

 

Yes there are some but not nearly as many as those who are basically stressed by having to pay someone else to use a house to live in. 

 

The effect on society as a whole caused by people having no security of dwelling is profound, long lasting and serious. 

 

Food is a daily requirement. It isn't all that expensive and if you don't get it you die. In fact it is very like beer. 

 

Housing is a basic need. Get people competing against each other and shit happens. 

 

 

 

 

Inflation is high at the moment because food prices are going up. The war in Ukraine and now the dam being blown up will cause a shortage. 

I am not sure which world you are living in but it is not the same world as the rest of us

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Inflation is high at the moment because food prices are going up. The war in Ukraine and now the dam being blown up will cause a shortage. 

I am not sure which world you are living in but it is not the same world as the rest of us

I don't think a 50% hike in my car insurance is caused by the increase in food prices. I think you've got cause and effect muddled up where inflation is concerned - it's a bit more complex than that, too.

At the moment, one cause of inflation is firms making excessive profits, just because they can. Hardship is caused by wages being kept artificially low by government support - benefits are overwhelmingly paid to people in work, not out of it.

Take fuel prices. The main oil suppliers have just decided to cut production in order to keep prices high. That raises the cost of everything including, to revert sort of to the forum focus, driving everybody's boat except Peterboat's. I don't think food prices were in the Saudis minds at the time.

[magnetman]

17 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Inflation is high at the moment because food prices are going up. The war in Ukraine and now the dam being blown up will cause a shortage. 

I am not sure which world you are living in but it is not the same world as the rest of us

 

No need to get into whose world we are living in. I am a human and therefore subject to things other humans are subject to. 

 

I reject entirely the principle of one man owning the house another man lives in and gaining from the toil of the other man by demanding payment for living in the house.

 

If this ends up with me having no money then so be it.