It wouldn’t be a free-for-all but a market where the arbitrary determination of land use to suit political preferences no longer stops people having an affordable home of their choice
I have never seen a sensible argument from the likes of Alice as to why the most fundamental law of economics should not apply to housing. They might like to look at almost any other country in the world, but Europe would do, to see that supply and demand is working perfectly adequately, there is not a massive shortage of housing and it doesn’t cost ludicrous multiples of the average salary to purchase.
The likes of Alice won’t look because they don’t want to see. They have an ideological commitment to keeping the country broadly as it is. If they had had the same attitude 100 years ago many of them would have to admit that the house they live in now, and they consider to be perfectly in order to exist, would never have been built.
I agree totally with your recommendations. Get the politicians out of the way and the market will address the demand. Because that’s what markets do.
Or get rid of the height restrictions. A glance at the number of plastic lawns, or the number of paved frontages reveals an unpent demand for housing without a garden, so grant the permits for them to have a flat. For Councils that have declared climate emergencies, repeal the right to light, and allow up to 12 stories on the same foot print. Heck, the Council said we need to consume fewer resources per person and per living space, so give it to them good and hard. And if any Councils still object then grant permits to go Tiu Keng Leng. It's an emergency.
“... ‘increasing housing supply will bring prices down’. But this logic doesn’t work if demand stays high. [•••] Housing markets are usually highly regulated for this reason.”
That’s why idiot Alice, because the market is not a free market and is being distorted by regulation. Regulation always, always, always = shortage of supply; higher costs and thus higher end-user prices. If demand is high, prices are high and this brings demand down. Alice doesn’t understand that ‘demand’, (nearly everyone wants a Rolls Royce but it doesn’t mean demand is high) so it doesn’t mean ‘I want a house’ it means actual purchases of houses - and if demand exceeds supply, house prices go up and ‘demand’ falls. High prices encourage more supply except when government (and Alice) get involved. Market economics is mystery and anathema to morons with the Socialist mind virus.
NIMBYism isn’t the main problem either. It is the tortuous, and Byzantine planning process which drives up the cost of constructable land. It is carbon neutral nonsense driving up costs. Building on ‘brown field’ is more expensive because of the cost of hazard surveys then removal of any contaminated top-soil to specialised disposal sites. It is the insistence that in many cases a proportion of the development must be ‘affordable housing’ (= no profit), whatever that nonsense means. Affordable to whom?
The solution is scrap the Planning Act, get Government at all levels out of the process. As a result more land becomes constructible, and developers won’t have to build in anybody’s back yard. They want to do so now, because land next to other developed land is easier (cheaper) to get planning permission for.
I have never seen a sensible argument from the likes of Alice as to why the most fundamental law of economics should not apply to housing. They might like to look at almost any other country in the world, but Europe would do, to see that supply and demand is working perfectly adequately, there is not a massive shortage of housing and it doesn’t cost ludicrous multiples of the average salary to purchase.
The likes of Alice won’t look because they don’t want to see. They have an ideological commitment to keeping the country broadly as it is. If they had had the same attitude 100 years ago many of them would have to admit that the house they live in now, and they consider to be perfectly in order to exist, would never have been built.
I agree totally with your recommendations. Get the politicians out of the way and the market will address the demand. Because that’s what markets do.
Or get rid of the height restrictions. A glance at the number of plastic lawns, or the number of paved frontages reveals an unpent demand for housing without a garden, so grant the permits for them to have a flat. For Councils that have declared climate emergencies, repeal the right to light, and allow up to 12 stories on the same foot print. Heck, the Council said we need to consume fewer resources per person and per living space, so give it to them good and hard. And if any Councils still object then grant permits to go Tiu Keng Leng. It's an emergency.
“... ‘increasing housing supply will bring prices down’. But this logic doesn’t work if demand stays high. [•••] Housing markets are usually highly regulated for this reason.”
That’s why idiot Alice, because the market is not a free market and is being distorted by regulation. Regulation always, always, always = shortage of supply; higher costs and thus higher end-user prices. If demand is high, prices are high and this brings demand down. Alice doesn’t understand that ‘demand’, (nearly everyone wants a Rolls Royce but it doesn’t mean demand is high) so it doesn’t mean ‘I want a house’ it means actual purchases of houses - and if demand exceeds supply, house prices go up and ‘demand’ falls. High prices encourage more supply except when government (and Alice) get involved. Market economics is mystery and anathema to morons with the Socialist mind virus.
NIMBYism isn’t the main problem either. It is the tortuous, and Byzantine planning process which drives up the cost of constructable land. It is carbon neutral nonsense driving up costs. Building on ‘brown field’ is more expensive because of the cost of hazard surveys then removal of any contaminated top-soil to specialised disposal sites. It is the insistence that in many cases a proportion of the development must be ‘affordable housing’ (= no profit), whatever that nonsense means. Affordable to whom?
The solution is scrap the Planning Act, get Government at all levels out of the process. As a result more land becomes constructible, and developers won’t have to build in anybody’s back yard. They want to do so now, because land next to other developed land is easier (cheaper) to get planning permission for.