Disagreeing with Dave (From York Press)

Or, put another way, the rate of profit is insufficient for greedy developers such as Persimmon, so the poorest people in society should be made to suffer.

Spin along with Dave, engineer the facts to suit an agenda.

An agenda which has proved most successfull in providing much needed housing for the needy residents of York.

Now let me see , where are they and how many are they ?

Never mind, we are committed to helping developers.
Which developers have been helped ?
No Im struggling with that one as well.
Come on Dave , help us out here.

Zetkin wrote:
Or, put another way, the rate of profit is insufficient for greedy developers such as Persimmon, so the poorest people in society should be made to suffer.

Do you say the same thing about pharmaceutical companies who's profits dwarf housebuilders in both percentage terms and amounts ?

What about any private-sector business that makes bigger profits than housebuilders - why aren't you attacking them as greedy too ?

Persimmon lost £780m in 2008, and Barratt lost £679m in 2009. The largest twenty housebuilders lost a total of £5.3billion between 2008 and 2010. Did anyone bail them out, or complain about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in housebuilding.

It's time that the left got off the backs of housebuilders and stopped treating them like a nationalised industry existing only to solve the lack of affordable/social housing. They are not a charity and it's time S106 affordable housing was dumped, and housebuilders allowed to get on with their business without being discriminated against and having to do the governments job.

END THE DISCRIMINATION NOW !

I'm waiting for any Labour councillor to dare to challenge Mr Cordock's facts on this forum.

They won't of course, because they can't

Time and time again Coun Merrett and Coun Simpson-Laing claim their policies are working, but, never do they provide any facts to back up their deception. The truth is, the council's housing predictions and policies have failed - failed monumentally. They are not bad, they are atrocious - far worse than almost all other councils in terms of the decline in housing completions. Where are the numbers, Coun Merrett ? - it's time that you told the truth !

Consider these facts:-

1. York's affordable housing policy target was doubled from 25% to 50% in April 2005.
2. Leeds Council kept their 25% AH target at the same time.
3. Leeds housing output peaked in 2008/09.
4. Housing completions in most councils in Yorks & Humber region peaked in 2007/08.
5. The UK's housing completions peaked in 2007/08.
6. York's housing output peaked in.... 2004/05 !
7. York lost potententially thousands of houses and jobs, and hundreds of millions in lost revenue to their economy because their housing output went into premature decline !

Question:-
Why did York's housing completions peak three years before most of the UK, and four years before Leeds ?

Answer:-
See number '1' above.

When will Coun Simpson-Laing and Coun Merrett acknowlege and take responsibility for this ?

Zetkin wrote:
Or, put another way, the rate of profit is insufficient for greedy developers such as Persimmon, so the poorest people in society should be made to suffer.

Housebuilders, like any other private-sector company pay tax on their profits, income tax is paid by their employees, and tax is paid on the dividends paid to their shareholders. These taxes are used by the government, amongst other things, to build social housing, and benefits to the poor, sick and vulnerable.

Why is it then, that housebuilders are forced to provide social housing for which they are paid less than the cost and the land is provided for free (no payment) ?

Is this fair ?

No !

IT'S UNFAIR AND DISCRIMINATORY !

When ministers come up with a bright idea to promote home ownership, it’s usually time to worry. David Cameron has written for the Mail on Sunday and it says that, he will detail yet more policies to help the housebuilding industry. CoffeeHousers will be familiar with the argument: England needs 230,000 extra homes a year to meet demand but only 124,000 homes were completed last year. This is holding back the recovery. The market has failed, so government must step in. In his article, the Prime Minister presents Nimbys as the main problem and takes aim at them.

‘A key part of recovery is building the houses our people need, but a familiar cry goes up: ‘Yes, we want more housing; but no to every development – and not in my back yard.’ The nations we’re competing against don’t stand for this kind of paralysis and neither must we.’
Two of the nations we’re competing against, Ireland and Spain learned the hard way that the idea of building lots of houses to stoke the economy is an illusion, the economic equivalent of the Penrose Stairs. It makes sense on first glance, but not on further inspection. Both countries, new and half-built property is everywhere, memorials to the years of hubris. The objection in Britain is not ‘not in my backyard’ but more ‘the market is midway through a crash, why would we build now?’

Britain’s biggest housebuilders already have land with permission to build almost 300,000 homes but they’re not doing so. A large part of the reason why is that, like many companies, they are holding on to their cash thinking that worse is still to come. When governments try to rig this market, unintended consequences usually follow.

House prices are holding up okay in London, where our policymakers live and work. But outside, property prices are falling and have been for a while. This does not seem to be properly appreciated in Whitehall where plans to ‘help’ first time buyers continue. But why should government coax young people into a falling housing market? When you add the impact of inflation, and also that QE has also artificially inflated assets (according to the Bank of England) the real fall of UK housing market is more striking still.

So Cameron ought to be wary of the superficially attractive plan to boost housebuilding. It is easy for him to be deceived. Governmental attempts to buck the property market, using subsidy or artificially cheap debt, is what got us into this mess. Ask George W Bush how his sub-prime policy worked out for America. When the UK recovery comes, then so will the houses, helped by the bold and necessary planning reforms already enacted by Cameron’s government. But he can’t speed this along: if he tries to, it will end in tears.

I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter.

Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut.

Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts.

So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city.

I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

COUNCIL HOUSING FACTS

Private Housebuilders don't build council houses, governments/councils do using tax payers money or receipts fro the sale of council houses or other government owned assets.

Council house building has almost disappeared, as can be seen from the following output figures:-

Council Houses built in the UK:
Average yearly output
Rounded to nearest 1,000 except *

1951-60 : 178,000
1961-70 : 158,000
1971-80 : 121,000
1981-90 : 32,000
91-2000 : 3,000
2001-10 : *463

Private housebuilding has become the sole preserve of the large plc's who are less reliant on bank funding and many do not need it. They are too big to fail, and are playing a long game staying in business until the economic and political climate changes to their benefit. They will build only what they need to to maximise profit.

If the economic conditions improve and better margins are available through reduced regulatory burden, they will increase output. Output from them will never make up the shortfall and they will never have the capacity to build 250,000/year. The small and medium sized firms are almost disappearing because returns from housebuilding have been reduced by costly over-regulation. Unless government and councils reduce these burdens, there will be insufficient growth in the private housebuilding industry. A healthy growing sector needs small firms who then grow.

The legacy we have is one brought about mainly by over-regulation imposed by the previous blinkered Labour government, and made worse by the global economic situation. The current government have been too cautious in sticking with the policies that Labour brought in, and until they are more radical and remove things like AH through S106, there will not be any significant improvement. The only solution is to reinstate a massive nationwide council housing programme at levels last seen in the 1960's and 70's.

Look at the figures another way:-

Council Housing Built in the UK

Between 1951 - 1980 : 4,570,000
Between 1981 - 2010 : 355,000

Difference : A drop of 4.2million from one 30-year period to the other.

Solution to today's housing crisis (shortage) : Use the 1951-1980 model, and build between 125,000 to 150,000 council houses every year.

If you add this to the current output of around 120,000 private and social housing, you get around 250,000 or more new homes per year.

The answer is simple.

Tracey - do your housing history homework and sort out the problem.

Buzz Light-year wrote:
I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter. Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut. Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts. So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city. I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

Germany Beck's development proposals (by Persimmon and Hogg) include lifting the A19 above yesterday's flood level that caused it to close. If the Council had agreed to a reduction in the 35% affordable quota which is stalling this development, these roadworks would be in place, and the traffic chaos of yesterday would not have been caused.

Blame the council for this not the floods !

Buzz Light-year wrote:
I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter. Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut. Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts. So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city. I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

So you put car ownership before housing ?

It's okay for people to be homeless, as long as there are no traffic jams ?

#misplacedpriorities ?

We wont get a massive overbuild scenario like Spain as we have much more restricitve planning laws.
We have exactly the opposite.... a housebuilding slump.
Its wrong to say house prices everywhere outside of London have fallen In york they have not; In Harrogate they have not why?..Because supply is so low..Why is supply low?... because we cannot build profitably due to the planners requirements and demands for money and affordable homes. A catch 22 one may say?
But do we want reasonable numbers of homes built which will stop houses getting so expensive they are the preserve of a rich few or do we want a catastrophic shortage in York because politically our leaders will not accept a lesser number of affordable being supplied by private housebulders? I know I want work and that means being employed in the housebuilding trade which is all but ceasing to exist.
What is true is Mr Merritts statements are false. If they are not prove them, Mr M, with facts. You have not helped any housebuilders. Nothing you have done has been as a result of lobbying its all been forced on you.If anything your politically motivated stance has been a hinderance not a help to this issue.
As for Zetkins comment about greedy profit levels. Not every scheme is profitable and if you want to stay in business the profitable schemes subsidise the unprofitable ones and these levels of profit are just not acceptible today. What do you think Mr tescos makes on a loaf of bread/bar of chocolate etc etc? if they did not they would not be in business for loang

Buzz Light-year wrote:
I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter.

Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut.

Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts.

So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city.

I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

Quite right and with it a new road bridge from fulford to bishy road. That would be a good start.
If any of the stalled sites EVER get going schools doctors shops etc.
Im with you on that Buzz

What a weak letter. Mostly opinion trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Where there are facts they are totally dodgy. ie "Only one housebuilder has made a pre-tax profit of 20%"
I should hope so! That is a fantastic return on investment. How utterly greedy to want more.

I expect the council will ignore the letter. The writer had better hope so, if they respond they will wipe the floor with him.

6 letters from Matthew so far. If he has the support he claims, why does he have to write most of the letters?

Jezreel wrote:
What a weak letter. Mostly opinion trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Where there are facts they are totally dodgy. ie "Only one housebuilder has made a pre-tax profit of 20%" I should hope so! That is a fantastic return on investment. How utterly greedy to want more. I expect the council will ignore the letter. The writer had better hope so, if they respond they will wipe the floor with him. 6 letters from Matthew so far. If he has the support he claims, why does he have to write most of the letters?

Wipe the floor with him, will they ?
You wish ? !!!

Why is the letter weak ? Is it because it tells the truth ? The facts it gives are strong, and you can't challenge them with any counter-arguments. You just use bluff and bluster like the Labour councillors.

You have lost the argument, with your bitter, left wing prejudices. So pathetic !

The only 'dodgy' fact in Mr Cordock's letter, is the reference to the Council's viability study. It's a totally dodgy document.

It is supposed to be evidence-based, but, it resorts to using fictitious, hypothetical land values, to artificially support the inflated affordable housing targets. It cheats.

It's author; Dr Richard Fordham's company has gone bust three times, the third and final time whilst it produced York's AHVS. This so-called expert on viability, can't even make his own business viable ! York's viability guru, like his viability study is a total fraud.

The council were so embarrassed by this, they delayed it's publication by seven months so that the news about his company's collapse could be avoided.

How dodgy is that, Jezreel ?

Before this country does any major building overhaul the government should do something about the 1million plus homes standing empty as this would house over 25% of the people on the housing lists and then the 240k houses a year needed wont be as much.
All that builders care about is building as much as they can where ever they can for as much as they can.

jimmy120883 wrote:
Before this country does any major building overhaul the government should do something about the 1million plus homes standing empty as this would house over 25% of the people on the housing lists and then the 240k houses a year needed wont be as much. All that builders care about is building as much as they can where ever they can for as much as they can.

They are in business to do just that, and if houses are needed and people buy them, what is wrong with this ?

They provide employment, and pay their taxes.

The 1million empy houses is not their problem - blame the owners and the politicians for this !

Surely, this is a demand and supply problem. There is a huge demand for more homes, there is limited supply, hence we still have a housing bubble. Despite recession, despite falling demand in every other market, housing prices remain stubbornly high.
Lending is not the 'open gate' it used to be - thus adding to the problem.
Surely the solution is to build more houses; any houses frankly - they all enter the property chain. Build a £500k home, everyone hops one step up the ladder and a £70k flat is vacated at the bottom.

Politically though - we have a problem. The left want social policies - the right are running scared of property owners seeing their paper-worth diminishing.

Its a problem. But surely not one that will be solved by restricting development. Population in York was one of the fastest growing over the last decade - that needs more homes.

Now - the campaign on this site run by certain individuals maybe gets people back's up. I does me from time to time. I think the personal attacks and blinkered (they are all a disgrace etc) political bias hinders the cause, not helps it. But that aside - surely we need more houses - surely? Developers seem to be under boom time restrictions when things have changed massively.

Just my four penneth. Have stayed off this topic as it tends to just get silly. But whatever.

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

jimmy120883 wrote:
Before this country does any major building overhaul the government should do something about the 1million plus homes standing empty as this would house over 25% of the people on the housing lists and then the 240k houses a year needed wont be as much. All that builders care about is building as much as they can where ever they can for as much as they can.

They are in business to do just that, and if houses are needed and people buy them, what is wrong with this ?

They provide employment, and pay their taxes.

The 1million empy houses is not their problem - blame the owners and the politicians for this !

From what I remember reading, a lot of the empty houses aren't really available in that sense. Some are just the usual 'gap' between people moving out and moving in, others are not in a fit state to live in, etc. The idea that there are a load of people sitting on vacant property to make a profit is incorrect. For a start, nobody benefits from an empty house and owners will try and avoid it. Why choose to have no rent? Holiday home market meanwhile is still relatively small.

I undrstand that that but if someome owns two homes and one stands empty for long periods of time they sould pay higher tax to encourage them to get it rented out or to sell it on.
In England there are 75,000 empty council houses because of disrepair so instead of builders building new social housing for every 10 private why cant they say refurbish one of the council houses to every ten they build first before they start mass building all availabe space we have left.

I undrstand that that but if someome owns two homes and one stands empty for long periods of time they sould pay higher tax to encourage them to get it rented out or to sell it on.
In England there are 75,000 empty council houses because of disrepair so instead of builders building new social housing for every 10 private why cant they say refurbish one of the council houses to every ten they build first before they start mass building all availabe space we have left.

I undrstand that that but if someome owns two homes and one stands empty for long periods of time they sould pay higher tax to encourage them to get it rented out or to sell it on.
In England there are 75,000 empty council houses because of disrepair so instead of builders building new social housing for every 10 private why cant they say refurbish one of the council houses to every ten they build first before they start mass building all availabe space we have left.

Even AndyD wrote:
Surely, this is a demand and supply problem. There is a huge demand for more homes, there is limited supply, hence we still have a housing bubble. Despite recession, despite falling demand in every other market, housing prices remain stubbornly high.
Lending is not the 'open gate' it used to be - thus adding to the problem.
Surely the solution is to build more houses; any houses frankly - they all enter the property chain. Build a £500k home, everyone hops one step up the ladder and a £70k flat is vacated at the bottom.

Politically though - we have a problem. The left want social policies - the right are running scared of property owners seeing their paper-worth diminishing.

Its a problem. But surely not one that will be solved by restricting development. Population in York was one of the fastest growing over the last decade - that needs more homes.

Now - the campaign on this site run by certain individuals maybe gets people back's up. I does me from time to time. I think the personal attacks and blinkered (they are all a disgrace etc) political bias hinders the cause, not helps it. But that aside - surely we need more houses - surely? Developers seem to be under boom time restrictions when things have changed massively.

Just my four penneth. Have stayed off this topic as it tends to just get silly. But whatever.

It should be supply and demand, its just that the council have skewed it to the point that its not worth supplying them.

No sensible builder would build at a loss, so the supply is not there.

It is policies such as the AH targets, intended originally with the best of intentions to help people in rural areas from getting priced out of their local houses, but in the intervening years been used by council's for social engineering, which mean the prices have gone up and up anyway due to the lack of supply, however they have still not hit a price where it is both viable to build and banks will give money to buy them.

If the AH target was removed and the other pointless regulation was reduced, builders would build again, and house prices could find their natural level in the supply and demand market.

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote: I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter. Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut. Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts. So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city. I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

Germany Beck's development proposals (by Persimmon and Hogg) include lifting the A19 above yesterday's flood level that caused it to close. If the Council had agreed to a reduction in the 35% affordable quota which is stalling this development, these roadworks would be in place, and the traffic chaos of yesterday would not have been caused. Blame the council for this not the floods !

You misunderstand me.

I'm not blaming the floods. 'Lifting the A19' won't alleviate problems in Acomb or Clifton Moor.
Floods are temporary localized events.
I'm talking permanent citywide infrastructure.

I'm saying yesterday's rush hour demonstrated that York's infrastructure is already stretched. Any significant increase in building homes will push that beyond the limit.

Highhat understood me.

jimmy120883 wrote:
I undrstand that that but if someome owns two homes and one stands empty for long periods of time they sould pay higher tax to encourage them to get it rented out or to sell it on. In England there are 75,000 empty council houses because of disrepair so instead of builders building new social housing for every 10 private why cant they say refurbish one of the council houses to every ten they build first before they start mass building all availabe space we have left.

Why should they - it's not their problem, no more than it's say Tesco's or BP's ?

Leave housebuilders to build private housing, and the government/councils and RSL's should build social and council housing. The stealth tax has to stop.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote: I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter. Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut. Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts. So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city. I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

Germany Beck's development proposals (by Persimmon and Hogg) include lifting the A19 above yesterday's flood level that caused it to close. If the Council had agreed to a reduction in the 35% affordable quota which is stalling this development, these roadworks would be in place, and the traffic chaos of yesterday would not have been caused. Blame the council for this not the floods !

You misunderstand me.

I'm not blaming the floods. 'Lifting the A19' won't alleviate problems in Acomb or Clifton Moor.
Floods are temporary localized events.
I'm talking permanent citywide infrastructure.

I'm saying yesterday's rush hour demonstrated that York's infrastructure is already stretched. Any significant increase in building homes will push that beyond the limit.

Highhat understood me.

There is that, but infrastructure tends to respond to need doesn't it and is funded by that what creates that need.
In other words, as population grows and council tax receipts increase, infrastructure would be built to serve those extra persons and be paid for by them.
Similarly, those new people also influence economic growth in a city as they provide a demand for business, services, shops, etc. As business flourishes, so increases the tax receipts.
A city is largely a microcosm of national trends - economic growth is rarely a negative figure, even during hard times because population growth (coupled with technological innovation) just about ensures expansion. Okay - not so much right at this moment, in the biggest recession ever, but usually.

Even AndyD

Why do you think 'certain posters' resort to calling Labour councillors at York 'a disgrace' ?

When they blatantly attempt to mislead, as Merrett did in his letter, they deserve such criticism. They have been dishonest about the damage their policies have caused to York's economy, and seek to hide the extent of the policy failure. Merrett's denial to me personally that a housing trajectory with the SHLAA did not exist, done in front of his leader and deputy leader, plus three others was an attempt to discredit me and the information I referred to. It was his job to know that this existed, as it was a key prediction of housing output for York, made in a key Core strategy document. His denial was nothing less than disgraceful, as was his conduct in not apologising or acknowledging his mistake, when the proof was produced in an email.

Please stop sticking up for these councillors, and attacking me and others for criticising their conduct, which is clearly falls short of the standards they should be setting/keeping.

Now if you don't want York to grow because you think its a pretty city and would be spoiled by expansion - fair enough. But you can't say infrastructure can't cope with extra population because infrastructure (and schools etc) will rise to meet the challenge and be funded by greater tax receipts. That is how urban areas grow.

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Even AndyD

Why do you think 'certain posters' resort to calling Labour councillors at York 'a disgrace' ?

When they blatantly attempt to mislead, as Merrett did in his letter, they deserve such criticism. They have been dishonest about the damage their policies have caused to York's economy, and seek to hide the extent of the policy failure. Merrett's denial to me personally that a housing trajectory with the SHLAA did not exist, done in front of his leader and deputy leader, plus three others was an attempt to discredit me and the information I referred to. It was his job to know that this existed, as it was a key prediction of housing output for York, made in a key Core strategy document. His denial was nothing less than disgraceful, as was his conduct in not apologising or acknowledging his mistake, when the proof was produced in an email.

Please stop sticking up for these councillors, and attacking me and others for criticising their conduct, which is clearly falls short of the standards they should be setting/keeping.

Agree to disagree on that one - lets just call it different ways of arguing our points, shall we.

More interestingly - do you agree with the other bits? Demand, supply, housing, etc

Even AndyD,

You should acknowledge also that those of us who are pursuing a campaign against the council's damaging housing policies, have done considerable research and provided facts to back up our claims - something that the Labour councillors have not. The claim the are 'dedicated to helping developers' in York, but where is the proof ?

The facts speak for themselves; York's housing figures have been in decline since 2005, with no sign of any improvement. No matter how they spin it, it is clear and undeniable that their policies have failed, and are still failing. They have done nothing to help, and achieved nothing with this so-called 'dedication to helping developers'.

Even AndyD wrote:

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: Even AndyD Why do you think 'certain posters' resort to calling Labour councillors at York 'a disgrace' ? When they blatantly attempt to mislead, as Merrett did in his letter, they deserve such criticism. They have been dishonest about the damage their policies have caused to York's economy, and seek to hide the extent of the policy failure. Merrett's denial to me personally that a housing trajectory with the SHLAA did not exist, done in front of his leader and deputy leader, plus three others was an attempt to discredit me and the information I referred to. It was his job to know that this existed, as it was a key prediction of housing output for York, made in a key Core strategy document. His denial was nothing less than disgraceful, as was his conduct in not apologising or acknowledging his mistake, when the proof was produced in an email. Please stop sticking up for these councillors, and attacking me and others for criticising their conduct, which is clearly falls short of the standards they should be setting/keeping.

Agree to disagree on that one - lets just call it different ways of arguing our points, shall we. More interestingly - do you agree with the other bits? Demand, supply, housing, etc

Are you saying that there conduct is acceptable ?

For years, we were polite and curteous to them. We attended numerous meetings and workshops, gave facts and figures to support our argument, and where did that get us ? They treated us with complete and utter disrespect; ignored our requests, making out we were anti-this and anti-that. Don't for one minute think that we didn't do all we could to make our case in a civil manner. We did, and they threw it back in our faces.

I do agree with your views on supply and demand, market forces etc. Try getting Coun Merrett to agree with you, and more importantly, get him to do something about it !

I think I have acknowledged your point and agreed with it. Read what I put, we need more houses - the AH restrictions don't belong in this era - building any homes (not just social housing) has a positive reciprocal effect as people move up the ladder - infrastructure will expand to meet population and isn't an issue with more home building!

I agree!

Okay - I'm left leaning in terms of political ideology, generally speaking - but not on every bloomin' topic! This is what I've been saying before and what is wrong with UK politics - we are too blinded by party loyalty - *some* things the right do are good, ditto the left. Some not all. Political dogma isn't like supporting a football team - blind loyalty no matter what. Voters need to question, not just dumbly follow the banner. FWIW - I also think shutting Beckfield Lane tip was a terrible idea - it will lead so obviously to fly tipping. But in other areas - I think the Council do okay. At election time you weigh up the pros and cons and make your informed decision. How it works for me anyway.

Whoops - crossed posts, SP.

Even AndyD

Thanks for your last post..... and for agreeing. Hallelujah !

Political dogma is exactly what is causing the problem. Coun Merrett and Coun Simpson-Laing are pursuing an ideological approach to housing policy, assisted by politicised officers. They only want social housing, and are not at all bothered if private housebuilding grinds to a halt, even if it is at the expense of York's economy. They have a hatred of the word profit, and will do all they can to bring about compulsory powers to acquire land and hope for nationalisation of housebuilding - Merrett said as much at last year's October meeting. Coun Simpson-Laing said that she would rather have no houses built if private housebuilders could not provide social housing - can you believe that ? meme will confirm this - he heard her say it !

See - that post is rational, attacks nobody's hair, accuses nobody of being a stooge and frankly, sends a shiver down my spine because it is clearly (to me anyway) - plausible.

It would also explain what one sees on the streets of York. Where I live is a group of houses which joined the two Poppletons. A massive development - some might not have agreed with it, but the point is, it represented a time when houses were built to respond to demand. Ditto Clifton Moor for a slightly later era. Do we see that now? No. Does it explain why we still have a housing bubble? Of course - restricted supply. Do we have a housing shortage - absolutely.

My argument with you has never been over this specific issue, its more about attacking everything left of centre because your views are, with respect and perhaps understandably, coloured by this topic.

But anyway - glad to agree - that is twice now in about six months, you'll be buying Socialist Worker next (wink). :-)

Even AndyD,

I am very aware of the 1960's housing built in the Poppletons; by amongst others; Hull, Challis and Sawdon & Simpson - good York housebuilders, sadly no longer around, although Sawdon & Simpson were bought by Barratt. My grandfather built houses in the village from around 1950 to the 1970's and again his company is no longer around. This trend of good quality small housebuilders disappearing or stopping building in York has continued; Brisby, Pulleyn, Bradleys, PLC Homes, Claxton & Garland, Bushgable, Leeper & Hare, K W Linfoot, R D Pilcher & Son, George Bldes & Sons. None of these are building, and there are hardly any new firms being formed to continue what has been a long traditiuon of good local firms.

The here point is that the incentive has gone; regulatory burdens like AH through S106 has killed small firms and stopped almost all of the big firms. This will not be cured overnight, and York Council has contributed to the problem with it's crazy 50% AH policy that did massive damage over the six year period it existed.

Some of us have better and longer memories of housebuilding in York than these Johnny-come-lately councillors. You are right, land allocation by York Council is another failure on their part, but, by far the most damaging is the affordable housing policy.

Small world - I knew David Simpson quite well. Friends of my in-laws, but I used to like swapping debate with him and his lovely wife in the Collingwood on Friday nights.

Buzz Light-year wrote:

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Buzz Light-year wrote: I think the current flooding has a lot to say on this matter. Last night's rush hour was nasty. It was due mainly to Fulford Rd being shut. Clearly we lack the infrastructure to support any significant house building efforts. So while you guys scream out to 'be allowed to build' you could be calling for more transport misery and the death of the city. I think a campaign for better infrastructure should come well before a campaign for house building.

Germany Beck's development proposals (by Persimmon and Hogg) include lifting the A19 above yesterday's flood level that caused it to close. If the Council had agreed to a reduction in the 35% affordable quota which is stalling this development, these roadworks would be in place, and the traffic chaos of yesterday would not have been caused. Blame the council for this not the floods !

You misunderstand me.

I'm not blaming the floods. 'Lifting the A19' won't alleviate problems in Acomb or Clifton Moor.
Floods are temporary localized events.
I'm talking permanent citywide infrastructure.

I'm saying yesterday's rush hour demonstrated that York's infrastructure is already stretched. Any significant increase in building homes will push that beyond the limit.

Highhat understood me.

Highhat now lives in retirement in a world where politicians help the people who voted them in. Listen to their reasoning and act accordingly without refering to the political persuasion they are committed to.

His frustrations dealing with our locked into socialist dogma representatives finally made him decide to just bugger off and live without considering which newspaper to read.

We have been 'privileged' to live in an era when the two opposite ends of the political spectrum have proven to be failures. The Soviet model of pure socialism collapsed and more recently, well.....if anyone thinks whole countries (never mind banks) going bust is a big tick for pure (free market) capitalism, they are bonkers.

When the dust settles, we might just adopt a more sensible alternative. A third way. Co-operatives? Dunno - probably after my time. :-)

Even AndyD wrote:
Small world - I knew David Simpson quite well. Friends of my in-laws, but I used to like swapping debate with him and his lovely wife in the Collingwood on Friday nights.

I wonder what David Simpson would make of what has happened in York, if he was still alive ?

He still did a bit of housebuilding after Barratt's bought out S&S, trading as Heatherdale Homes and built a few more houses in Poppleton, (Longridge Lane, Dikelands Lane & Littlefield Close) and Station Lane, Shipton-by-Beningbro
ugh.

He'd probably raise his personal pint pot (proper tankard, didn't approve of tulip glasses) and be happy he was out of it! :-)

Even AndyD wrote:
He'd probably raise his personal pint pot (proper tankard, didn't approve of tulip glasses) and be happy he was out of it! :-)

Aye, he probably would too. ;-)

I'll drink to that, and him..... RIP.

York's Fairness Commission's Final Report published yesterday had this recommendation:
•Setting "stretching yet realistic" affordable housing targets which do not deter developers, providing more social housing and improving the quality of rented accommodation.

How can stretching targets be realistic ? This is the problem with the council's crazy rhetoric - it is a contradiction.

Targets should be achieveable and not be a disincentive, like they have been in York since April 2005. The reductions the council made in December 2010 were not enough. The target needs to be a maximum of 10% on sites of more than 15 dwellings in all areas; urban and rural.

It's time that the council listened to the experts - listen to the developers !”

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Zetkin wrote:
Or, put another way, the rate of profit is insufficient for greedy developers such as Persimmon, so the poorest people in society should be made to suffer.

Do you say the same thing about pharmaceutical companies who's profits dwarf housebuilders in both percentage terms and amounts ?

What about any private-sector business that makes bigger profits than housebuilders - why aren't you attacking them as greedy too ?

Persimmon lost £780m in 2008, and Barratt lost £679m in 2009. The largest twenty housebuilders lost a total of £5.3billion between 2008 and 2010. Did anyone bail them out, or complain about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in housebuilding.

It's time that the left got off the backs of housebuilders and stopped treating them like a nationalised industry existing only to solve the lack of affordable/social housing. They are not a charity and it's time S106 affordable housing was dumped, and housebuilders allowed to get on with their business without being discriminated against and having to do the governments job.

END THE DISCRIMINATION NOW !

Yes but housebuilding has a direct affect on society especially the lowest payed as if houses are not built there will be less affordable housing etc etc

Any other company that makes profits such as pharmacies don't really affect society as much and is therefore bot really a good comparison as all prescriptions cost the same now and it isn't as
Much of a problem as the current problem with housing


The housing situation needs sorting out and if it isn't moving cos profits arnt as high as some
People want them then public anger is understandable as they rely on the building sector for
Housing to be built , they currently feel they are being shafted out of
Housing because the builders can't make as much as they want.

Of course I'm
Just talking from a consumer side and I do understand that profit
Has to be made bit when does the profit margin become too small
To build that it doesn't matter that affordable housing is needed?

Theapplesarecoming wrote:

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Zetkin wrote: Or, put another way, the rate of profit is insufficient for greedy developers such as Persimmon, so the poorest people in society should be made to suffer.

Do you say the same thing about pharmaceutical companies who's profits dwarf housebuilders in both percentage terms and amounts ? What about any private-sector business that makes bigger profits than housebuilders - why aren't you attacking them as greedy too ? Persimmon lost £780m in 2008, and Barratt lost £679m in 2009. The largest twenty housebuilders lost a total of £5.3billion between 2008 and 2010. Did anyone bail them out, or complain about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in housebuilding. It's time that the left got off the backs of housebuilders and stopped treating them like a nationalised industry existing only to solve the lack of affordable/social housing. They are not a charity and it's time S106 affordable housing was dumped, and housebuilders allowed to get on with their business without being discriminated against and having to do the governments job. END THE DISCRIMINATION NOW !

Yes but housebuilding has a direct affect on society especially the lowest payed as if houses are not built there will be less affordable housing etc etc Any other company that makes profits such as pharmacies don't really affect society as much and is therefore bot really a good comparison as all prescriptions cost the same now and it isn't as Much of a problem as the current problem with housing The housing situation needs sorting out and if it isn't moving cos profits arnt as high as some People want them then public anger is understandable as they rely on the building sector for Housing to be built , they currently feel they are being shafted out of Housing because the builders can't make as much as they want. Of course I'm Just talking from a consumer side and I do understand that profit Has to be made bit when does the profit margin become too small To build that it doesn't matter that affordable housing is needed?

All of those who don't understand why, or don't agree with, housebuilders or investors/shareholde
rs in these companies, require/requiring a certain level of return on their investment, should try housebuilding themselves. Because of the risks and hassle involved, there needs to be big incentives to attract investors/entreprene
urs to set up new businesses. There is a big failure rate, and very few firms last longer than ten years - they either pack up, sell out or go bust, usually when recessions/downturns hit. Without new companies, you get shrinkage in the sector, like now. There is a now a serious structural problem: the sector is dominated by big firms, and there are insufficient smaller companies. Unless the government and councils roll back regulatory burden, starting with affordable housing through S106, the sector will not grow, and volumes will not increase, and the housing crisis will not improve, and will actually worsen.

After 37 years in the sector, as a professional (at Director level since 1984) , consultant, and an investor, I know what I am talking about - the same cannot be said for Coun Dave Merrett !

Theapplesarecoming wrote:

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:

Zetkin wrote: Or, put another way, the rate of profit is insufficient for greedy developers such as Persimmon, so the poorest people in society should be made to suffer.

Do you say the same thing about pharmaceutical companies who's profits dwarf housebuilders in both percentage terms and amounts ? What about any private-sector business that makes bigger profits than housebuilders - why aren't you attacking them as greedy too ? Persimmon lost £780m in 2008, and Barratt lost £679m in 2009. The largest twenty housebuilders lost a total of £5.3billion between 2008 and 2010. Did anyone bail them out, or complain about the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in housebuilding. It's time that the left got off the backs of housebuilders and stopped treating them like a nationalised industry existing only to solve the lack of affordable/social housing. They are not a charity and it's time S106 affordable housing was dumped, and housebuilders allowed to get on with their business without being discriminated against and having to do the governments job. END THE DISCRIMINATION NOW !

Yes but housebuilding has a direct affect on society especially the lowest payed as if houses are not built there will be less affordable housing etc etc Any other company that makes profits such as pharmacies don't really affect society as much and is therefore bot really a good comparison as all prescriptions cost the same now and it isn't as Much of a problem as the current problem with housing The housing situation needs sorting out and if it isn't moving cos profits arnt as high as some People want them then public anger is understandable as they rely on the building sector for Housing to be built , they currently feel they are being shafted out of Housing because the builders can't make as much as they want. Of course I'm Just talking from a consumer side and I do understand that profit Has to be made bit when does the profit margin become too small To build that it doesn't matter that affordable housing is needed?

All of those who don't understand why, or don't agree with, housebuilders or investors/shareholde
rs in these companies, require/requiring a certain level of return on their investment, should try housebuilding themselves. Because of the risks and hassle involved, there needs to be big incentives to attract investors/entreprene
urs to set up new businesses. There is a big failure rate, and very few firms last longer than ten years - they either pack up, sell out or go bust, usually when recessions/downturns hit. Without new companies, you get shrinkage in the sector, like now. There is a now a serious structural problem: the sector is dominated by big firms, and there are insufficient smaller companies. Unless the government and councils roll back regulatory burden, starting with affordable housing through S106, the sector will not grow, and volumes will not increase, and the housing crisis will not improve, and will actually worsen.

After 37 years in the sector, as a professional (at Director level since 1984) , consultant, and an investor, I know what I am talking about - the same cannot be said for Coun Dave Merrett !

I see the usual rantings are still spilling from the bigoted pimp. Idleness and far too much time on ones hands, makes forums full of repetition.

Hoofarted wrote:
I see the usual rantings are still spilling from the bigoted pimp. Idleness and far too much time on ones hands, makes forums full of repetition.

Ever the stalking troll, with nothing better to do than to attack those who expose your bitterness, prejudice and envy.

What is your experience of hard graft, and what are your achievements in business ?,

Hoofarted wrote:
I see the usual rantings are still spilling from the bigoted pimp. Idleness and far too much time on ones hands, makes forums full of repetition.

How many times have the bigoted Merrett and Simpson-Laing repeated their blinkered ideological excuses over the past seven years ?

The difference is, I do this at my own expense, whereas these two are paid from the public purse to spout their left-wing, political bile and drivel !

I cost the people of York nothing, but, their bitter prejudices, manifest in their damaging housing policies, have cost York thousands of jobs, thousands of houses and hundreds of millions lost revenue to the York economy.