You don’t need council houses, you don’t need rent controls, you don’t need national housing regulators, you don’t need new regulations - you need to let people build houses on land they own
I have never understood something about Margaret Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy. Many people complain that this reduced public housing, which of course it did. But the people who would have been living in public housing now had their own house, which most people agree is a good thing. Surely having everyone own their own home would be the ideal. So which was it? Was 'Right to Buy' a good or bad policy?
I'm not sure about just letting people build on land they own. The effect on services, congestion and the rest of the town has to be considered.
But, what if we put local authorities in control AND had local authorities funded by the council tax and business rates? A local authority would have to balance the value of more people coming to town with the value of the town for existing residents. If they want to give into the NIMBYs, that's fine. But maybe the town next door gets richer for bringing more of them in?
This thing of funding councils from national government destroys these incentives to develop. Imagine if Mendip could collect huge business rates in exchange for the noise from Bristol Airport expanding? OK, it might get a bit noisier in summer, but all the locals pay less for services because the council has that money?
I've always thought our strict planning laws are counterproductive, both in terms of housing stock and economics.
In the USA and Canada there are the most wonderful lakes with individually designed houses dotted around the shore.
In Scotland, there are so many lochs that a small percentage of them could de designated development areas with land sold off relatively cheaply to individuals (not corporate house builders), with relaxed planning regulations.
This would improve the number and quality of houses and provide much needed economic activity.
Same for other parts of the UK.
Holland is much better at this and has some fabulous self build zones.
Free up land, give people opportunity and they will build!
Thank you for a great piece! Agree with almost everything you say with two caveats:
1. Another way of persuading the housing left that the solution is not social housing is to explain to them that the root cause of homelessness / housing waiting lists is people not being able to afford to rent privately. If you persuade them that increased building leads reductions in private rents then you can persuade them that waiting lists will fall if we just build more. Additionally building more council housing at the expense of private housing is only likely to push up private rents and lead to more people on waiting lists.
2. The shift in tenure from owner occupation to private rent happened from the 1990s throughout the 2000s. Do you think that the deregulating buy to let helped facilitate that as it enabled landlords to outbid first time buyers? Therefore, do you think Osborne's reforms in circa 2016 of eliminating mortgage interest tax reduction did the opposite? I do feel smart regulation can help!
‘Affordable housing’. Your house subsidised by the labour of others. Making houses less affordable for all.
I have never understood something about Margaret Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy. Many people complain that this reduced public housing, which of course it did. But the people who would have been living in public housing now had their own house, which most people agree is a good thing. Surely having everyone own their own home would be the ideal. So which was it? Was 'Right to Buy' a good or bad policy?
I'm not sure about just letting people build on land they own. The effect on services, congestion and the rest of the town has to be considered.
But, what if we put local authorities in control AND had local authorities funded by the council tax and business rates? A local authority would have to balance the value of more people coming to town with the value of the town for existing residents. If they want to give into the NIMBYs, that's fine. But maybe the town next door gets richer for bringing more of them in?
This thing of funding councils from national government destroys these incentives to develop. Imagine if Mendip could collect huge business rates in exchange for the noise from Bristol Airport expanding? OK, it might get a bit noisier in summer, but all the locals pay less for services because the council has that money?
I've always thought our strict planning laws are counterproductive, both in terms of housing stock and economics.
In the USA and Canada there are the most wonderful lakes with individually designed houses dotted around the shore.
In Scotland, there are so many lochs that a small percentage of them could de designated development areas with land sold off relatively cheaply to individuals (not corporate house builders), with relaxed planning regulations.
This would improve the number and quality of houses and provide much needed economic activity.
Same for other parts of the UK.
Holland is much better at this and has some fabulous self build zones.
Free up land, give people opportunity and they will build!
Thank you for a great piece! Agree with almost everything you say with two caveats:
1. Another way of persuading the housing left that the solution is not social housing is to explain to them that the root cause of homelessness / housing waiting lists is people not being able to afford to rent privately. If you persuade them that increased building leads reductions in private rents then you can persuade them that waiting lists will fall if we just build more. Additionally building more council housing at the expense of private housing is only likely to push up private rents and lead to more people on waiting lists.
2. The shift in tenure from owner occupation to private rent happened from the 1990s throughout the 2000s. Do you think that the deregulating buy to let helped facilitate that as it enabled landlords to outbid first time buyers? Therefore, do you think Osborne's reforms in circa 2016 of eliminating mortgage interest tax reduction did the opposite? I do feel smart regulation can help!