‘ The voices you don’t hear are those struggling to keep a roof over their heads, or those without a home’

York Press: Should we treat housing like any other consumer good, where you get what you can afford? Should we treat housing like any other consumer good, where you get what you can afford?

John Hocking, the executive director of the York-based Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust, looks at the crisis being created by the city’s rising house prices.

Earlier this year, the City of York Council received a rap over the knuckles from the Government’s planning inspector over the inadequacy of its plans for future housing provision.

With that, we were sent back to square one in the development plan game. York Housing Week was established to start a debate by asking: ‘‘What next?’’ York is a good place to live. Employment is rising and the two universities are expanding along with the city’s population, the third-fastest growth rate in England.

Our problem is that with growth has come a staggering increase in house prices.

In January 1997, the average price of a property in York was £80,000. By October this year it was £202,000. Needless to say, average wages have effectively flatlined during this period, hovering around £22,000, with social tenants earning an average salary of below £12,000.

In our northern mini-growth bubble, those who would be expecting to buy are seeing their mortgage deposit pot leached away into rising private rents, while watching the buy-to-let market snapping up low-cost housing and the council’s waiting list is growing.

Meanwhile, contented residents are not prepared to suffer anyone else living near them.

Any planning application is strongly contested, ignoring desperate housing need. Even where need is acknowledged, residents want new housing built elsewhere on that mythical land of “brown fields”.

Developments already on these sites are stalled, awaiting nervous investors to commit.

The voices you don’t hear are those struggling to keep a roof over their heads, or those without a home. They are always absent, their case having to be made by troublesome academics, housing professionals and a few worried councillors.

York’s Housing Week was primarily about listening and sharing ideas, centred around a statement from one of the small builders who have been running an enthusiastic campaign against the council’s affordable housing programme. “If local people can’t afford what I build, does it matter?”

A local landlord added a supplementary question: “Why don’t we build low-cost housing like prefabs for those on low income?”

Should we treat housing like any other consumer good, where you get what you can afford?

Does it matter if local people are forced out of their communities because of rising housing costs?

Does it matter that the pressure on the 12,000 stock of social housing is ramped up by growing waiting lists feeding the call for the more efficient use of stock?

The council estimates that York residents will lose £2.9 million a year through the impact of welfare reform, money spent on debt, downsizing and destitution. The first emergency food service in the city was set up last month.

Does it matter if those on low incomes can only be offered lower-standard housing?

There are rumours that senior ministers have been surprised at the high standard of social housing.

For me these are the important questions that we have to answer. In York, every year we are failing to get anywhere near building the homes required, let alone meet our target for affordable homes.

The council has launched a “Get York building” campaign. Bad news for the nimbys, but this could also spell bad news for affordability, as requirements to develop social housing are eased and housing associations look at York’s high values and step into the private rented sector market to support their work.

At the end, I am left wondering whether our city – which once mirrored the average population profile of England – is slowly becoming a haven for the well- heeled, a Winchester of the north, expelling its low income and working population to less desirable, cheaper areas of Yorkshire, forcing them into a decreasing pool of social rented homes or low standard private rented housing.

My question for you is: Does this matter?

Comments (75)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:26am Fri 23 Nov 12

The Great Buda says...

Sadly York is full of "I'm alright jack" types who don't care about anyone else.
Sadly York is full of "I'm alright jack" types who don't care about anyone else. The Great Buda

9:42am Fri 23 Nov 12

poptree says...

Agree with person above. A great article, we should have more like these.
Agree with person above. A great article, we should have more like these. poptree

9:46am Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

Housing is a commodity like any other. It is also an essential commodity for those that really need it. But its not an automatic right just because you want one.
However so long as a property is not sub standard but not necessarily luxurious then those that need a roof could have one. it may not be a palace and may not be exactly what they want but is that not the point? if everyone gets what they want as a subsidised product then the the incentive to succeed and get what you really want is removed.
Lets also remove the urban myth that affordable homes mean you can buy a house cheap.By far the greatest percentage are social rented homes which dont help anyone get on the housing ladder. Those that are sold discounted or shared ownership usually have mechanisms that prevent them being sold on at a vast profit and therefore dont really assist anyone to get into the private sector but give the illusion of being a houseowner in the marketplace.
The only solution is to try to match demand and supply but as Mr Hocking says at present the planning system/Yorks lack of land/Nimbys and the economy are all stopping supply coming forward and as York is such an attractive place then demand is also high. We are a victim of our own success but no politician has the will to force through massive land supply in the future and the political leanings of the present council just pile more costs on developers through section 106 agreements which has to be borne by someone and thats reflected in higher house prices; its a catch 22.
This is an unresovable problem.On the one hand we need homes for everyone. On the other political pressure tries to force private developers to supply the social rented homes required. Its unaffordable to developers so its a Mexican standoff and at last CoYC have realised this.
York could charge develpers an affordable premium on every house say £5K on sale of the home and then use this money to build their social rented homes on their own land rather than selling their land at the highest prices they can achieve and then expecting others to deliver
They should also abandon the PC tactic of pepperpotting as the need is greater than social perfection and most people dont care about pepperpotting. They just want a decent roof over their heads.
Perhaps we should look at a different and less land hungry style of building for social rented with a lower internal sepcification as if its rented as dicounted then it has to be affordable to build
The other issue is who gets these homes. The fact is everyone seems to think that if they want a home, but cannot afford one, they qualify for one.These should be for those who REALLY have no other option. Many of us can live at home with parents Many of us can rent Those who have NO other option should be those who get something rather than end up on the streets.Its not an automatic right to get a house just because you want one which seems to be CoYC view.
There are some tough choices to be made but what is clear is that the provision of these homes requires massive subsidy. Derwenthorpe got some £8 million in subsidy ...If the council wants private housebuilders to supply these where do they think the money is going to come from?They dont get subsidies like JRHT.
Perhaps we do become a preserve of the rich in the city centre like London with the poorer living on the outskirts. I dont know thwe answers but do know that CoYC own policies presently are restricting supply which is making the problem worse
Housing is a commodity like any other. It is also an essential commodity for those that really need it. But its not an automatic right just because you want one. However so long as a property is not sub standard but not necessarily luxurious then those that need a roof could have one. it may not be a palace and may not be exactly what they want but is that not the point? if everyone gets what they want as a subsidised product then the the incentive to succeed and get what you really want is removed. Lets also remove the urban myth that affordable homes mean you can buy a house cheap.By far the greatest percentage are social rented homes which dont help anyone get on the housing ladder. Those that are sold discounted or shared ownership usually have mechanisms that prevent them being sold on at a vast profit and therefore dont really assist anyone to get into the private sector but give the illusion of being a houseowner in the marketplace. The only solution is to try to match demand and supply but as Mr Hocking says at present the planning system/Yorks lack of land/Nimbys and the economy are all stopping supply coming forward and as York is such an attractive place then demand is also high. We are a victim of our own success but no politician has the will to force through massive land supply in the future [turkeys dont vote for Xmas do they!] and the political leanings of the present council just pile more costs on developers through section 106 agreements which has to be borne by someone and thats reflected in higher house prices; its a catch 22. This is an unresovable problem.On the one hand we need homes for everyone. On the other political pressure tries to force private developers to supply the social rented homes required. Its unaffordable to developers so its a Mexican standoff and at last CoYC have realised this. York could charge develpers an affordable premium on every house say £5K on sale of the home [a bit like stamp duty] and then use this money to build their social rented homes on their own land rather than selling their land at the highest prices they can achieve and then expecting others to deliver [CoYC were very good at this tactic as they sold lots of land BEFORE affordable requirements came in knowing they were coming!] They should also abandon the PC tactic of pepperpotting as the need is greater than social perfection and most people dont care about pepperpotting.[except the politicians] They just want a decent roof over their heads. Perhaps we should look at a different and less land hungry style of building [apartments? ] for social rented with a lower internal sepcification as if its rented as dicounted then it has to be affordable to build The other issue is who gets these homes. The fact is everyone seems to think that if they want a home, but cannot afford one, they qualify for one.These should be for those who REALLY have no other option. Many of us can live at home with parents [not ideal but not a disater] Many of us can rent [not exactly what we want but that's a fact of life] Those who have NO other option should be those who get something rather than end up on the streets.Its not an automatic right to get a house just because you want one which seems to be CoYC view. There are some tough choices to be made but what is clear [and Mr Hocking does not say this] is that the provision of these homes requires massive subsidy. Derwenthorpe got some £8 million in subsidy [not something announced often]...If the council wants private housebuilders to supply these where do they think the money is going to come from?They dont get subsidies like JRHT. Perhaps we do become a preserve of the rich in the city centre like London with the poorer living on the outskirts. I dont know thwe answers but do know that CoYC own policies presently are restricting supply which is making the problem worse meme

10:46am Fri 23 Nov 12

again says...

We have the situation for which we voted. Several times.

Now we are surprised? Disappointed?
We have the situation for which we voted. Several times. Now we are surprised? Disappointed? again

10:48am Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

The council estimates that York residents will lose £2.9 million a year through the impact of welfare reform, money spent on debt, downsizing and destitution. The first emergency food service in the city was set up last month.

I wonder what the cost to yorks economy is of the Councils policies which stop York builders actually building. I suspect far far more!
You have to create wealth if you want to redistribute it...Something our council dont seem to understand
The council estimates that York residents will lose £2.9 million a year through the impact of welfare reform, money spent on debt, downsizing and destitution. The first emergency food service in the city was set up last month. I wonder what the cost to yorks economy is of the Councils policies which stop York builders actually building. I suspect far far more! You have to create wealth if you want to redistribute it...Something our council dont seem to understand meme

10:49am Fri 23 Nov 12

roskoboskovic says...

the cost of housing in york is now mainly driven by the university.students can afford the extortionate rents asked in the short time they are here but for less well off residents they are out of reach.the businessmen of york welcome the students but for the residents they are a pain in the a***
the cost of housing in york is now mainly driven by the university.students can afford the extortionate rents asked in the short time they are here but for less well off residents they are out of reach.the businessmen of york welcome the students but for the residents they are a pain in the a*** roskoboskovic

10:53am Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Instead of demonising the small private housebuilder and asking provocative questions like 'does it matter ?', he should ask, is the system which forces private housebuilders to hand over part of their stock at less than cost, with the land thrown in for free for social housing, fair ?

This punitive, discriminatory system is a double hit on housebuilders and landowners, who are in effect taxed twice.

The housing problem is the responsibility of the government and society, the cost of which should be borne equally and proportionately. It's time that the housebuilder and landowner were treated on a level playing field instead of being hammered by politicians and those who see them as an easy target. Return the system to what worked before affordable housing through S106 became a requirement. This should have been done immediately after the credit crunch to allow the housebuilders to recover quickly. It has been left too long, and the result is a worsening housing crisis. Drop it now, or suffer the consequences.
Instead of demonising the small private housebuilder and asking provocative questions like 'does it matter ?', he should ask, is the system which forces private housebuilders to hand over part of their stock at less than cost, with the land thrown in for free for social housing, fair ? This punitive, discriminatory system is a double hit on housebuilders and landowners, who are in effect taxed twice. The housing problem is the responsibility of the government and society, the cost of which should be borne equally and proportionately. It's time that the housebuilder and landowner were treated on a level playing field instead of being hammered by politicians and those who see them as an easy target. Return the system to what worked before affordable housing through S106 became a requirement. This should have been done immediately after the credit crunch to allow the housebuilders to recover quickly. It has been left too long, and the result is a worsening housing crisis. Drop it now, or suffer the consequences. Scarlet Pimpernel

11:04am Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

meme wrote:
The council estimates that York residents will lose £2.9 million a year through the impact of welfare reform, money spent on debt, downsizing and destitution. The first emergency food service in the city was set up last month. I wonder what the cost to yorks economy is of the Councils policies which stop York builders actually building. I suspect far far more! You have to create wealth if you want to redistribute it...Something our council dont seem to understand
Target 800 homes a year x ave £200k = £160million/year which is the benefit to York's economy.

The last five years the council has missed it's target by an average of 337 dwellings per year x 5yrs x £200k = £337million loss to York's economy..

This year, excluding the student units they are illegitimately counting as housing, they will complete around 300 proper dwellings - 500 under their target, at a further loss to York's economy of £100million.

The losses to York's economy are massive, yet the council won't move on their prohibitive affordable requirements. The council are at fault here, no one else.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: The council estimates that York residents will lose £2.9 million a year through the impact of welfare reform, money spent on debt, downsizing and destitution. The first emergency food service in the city was set up last month. I wonder what the cost to yorks economy is of the Councils policies which stop York builders actually building. I suspect far far more! You have to create wealth if you want to redistribute it...Something our council dont seem to understand[/p][/quote]Target 800 homes a year x ave £200k = £160million/year which is the benefit to York's economy. The last five years the council has missed it's target by an average of 337 dwellings per year x 5yrs x £200k = £337million loss to York's economy.. This year, excluding the student units they are illegitimately counting as housing, they will complete around 300 proper dwellings - 500 under their target, at a further loss to York's economy of £100million. The losses to York's economy are massive, yet the council won't move on their prohibitive affordable requirements. The council are at fault here, no one else. Scarlet Pimpernel

11:23am Fri 23 Nov 12

Oaklands Resident says...

Hocking was in charge of Council housing in York for a few years after "Red" Bob Towner quit.

He jumped ship and went to Housing Leeds - a Quango style operation set up by the last Labour government to take over the (lamentable) Council housing system there.

That didn't work, so now he's back preaching in York.

The JR Housing Trust is a good organisation but they should leave the political posturing to their JRF counterparts.

The money that was raised from Council house sales in the 70's & 80's should have been reinvested in new housing. Too late to turn the clock back on that now.

The Council has "form" here as it refused, for many years, to buy properties which were available on the open market to supplement its stocks.

More recently it has declined to participate in a programme of new Council house building, claiming that "intermediate" rent levels are too high.

Most of the claims about the impact of lower rent allowances are exagerated. The Press just prints whatever claims the Labour zealots put their way. Whatever happens, Cllr Laign will not be responsible for anything, ever!.

Bring back annual Council elections!
Hocking was in charge of Council housing in York for a few years after "Red" Bob Towner quit. He jumped ship and went to Housing Leeds - a Quango style operation set up by the last Labour government to take over the (lamentable) Council housing system there. That didn't work, so now he's back preaching in York. The JR Housing Trust is a good organisation but they should leave the political posturing to their JRF counterparts. The money that was raised from Council house sales in the 70's & 80's should have been reinvested in new housing. Too late to turn the clock back on that now. The Council has "form" here as it refused, for many years, to buy properties which were available on the open market to supplement its stocks. More recently it has declined to participate in a programme of new Council house building, claiming that "intermediate" rent levels are too high. Most of the claims about the impact of lower rent allowances are exagerated. The Press just prints whatever claims the Labour zealots put their way. Whatever happens, Cllr Laign will not be responsible for anything, ever!. Bring back annual Council elections! Oaklands Resident

11:33am Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

Its no good blaming investors for the problem as at least they supply homes that people can rent in the open market and a home is a home.
Its supply vs demand that's the issue and york and indeed its residents cannot face the fact that to supply enough homes green belt land will have to go.
There is no getting around this if there is going to be any real attempt to resolve this issue . York will also have to stop being so precious in its planning consents. IE Terrys why have any commercial ?make it all homes
Why protect a building that's uneconomic to develop like the huge long building. Let it be demolished and build homes. The need for housing is more important than the need for conserving this property. I am not advocating wholesale demolition of our heritage but some heritage less important than other heritage.
IE The Bonding warehouse has rotted for 10 years Why ..Because its not a viable site so is it worth saving? Indeed is it saveable?
The only way to get more supply is to radically rethink planning policy which some will find very hard to swallow but do we resolve the housing crisis or just fret about it and do nothing
Its no good blaming investors for the problem as at least they supply homes that people can rent in the open market and a home is a home. Its supply vs demand that's the issue and york and indeed its residents cannot face the fact that to supply enough homes green belt land will have to go. There is no getting around this if there is going to be any real attempt to resolve this issue . York will also have to stop being so precious in its planning consents. IE Terrys why have any commercial ?make it all homes Why protect a building that's uneconomic to develop like the huge long building. Let it be demolished and build homes. The need for housing is more important than the need for conserving this property. I am not advocating wholesale demolition of our heritage but some heritage less important than other heritage. IE The Bonding warehouse has rotted for 10 years Why ..Because its not a viable site so is it worth saving? Indeed is it saveable? The only way to get more supply is to radically rethink planning policy which some will find very hard to swallow but do we resolve the housing crisis or just fret about it and do nothing meme

12:13pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Gary Gilmores Eyes says...

‘The voices you don’t hear are those’ from another posters comments that have been removed earlier this morning because they do not fit in with the PR communication from the Jo Ro trust and that The Press think do not apply!


Only hearing one side of the argument as usual from The Press
‘The voices you don’t hear are those’ from another posters comments that have been removed earlier this morning because they do not fit in with the PR communication from the Jo Ro trust and that The Press think do not apply! Only hearing one side of the argument as usual from The Press Gary Gilmores Eyes

12:36pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Pedro says...

There are many tools on the web (example below) to compare prices over periods of time. Many people think they have made a fortune on their houses, but have actually only kept up with inflation.

York has many problems which will never be solved. Green belt and limited brown field sites. Many people live outside of York (Selby, Haxby, etc.) because they can't afford anything here. If the station at Haxby was re-opened (and it might) then that would help.

http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/money/bills
/article-1633409/His
toric-inflation-calc
ulator-value-money-c
hanged-1900.html
There are many tools on the web (example below) to compare prices over periods of time. Many people think they have made a fortune on their houses, but have actually only kept up with inflation. York has many problems which will never be solved. Green belt and limited brown field sites. Many people live outside of York (Selby, Haxby, etc.) because they can't afford anything here. If the station at Haxby was re-opened (and it might) then that would help. http://www.thisismon ey.co.uk/money/bills /article-1633409/His toric-inflation-calc ulator-value-money-c hanged-1900.html Pedro

1:11pm Fri 23 Nov 12

adam reith says...

People should cut their coat according to their cloth. I lived in a poxy bedsit for 18 months when I got married, saving a deposit for a house. People today expect to move into a fully furnished house with all mod cons. Why should they be subsidised by those who've worked for what they've achieved over a whole lifetime?
People should cut their coat according to their cloth. I lived in a poxy bedsit for 18 months when I got married, saving a deposit for a house. People today expect to move into a fully furnished house with all mod cons. Why should they be subsidised by those who've worked for what they've achieved over a whole lifetime? adam reith

1:23pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Zetkin says...

Oaklands Resident is dead right to say, "The money that was raised from Council house sales in the 70's & 80's should have been reinvested in new housing."

Unfortunately the Tories' aim in forbidding the use of the money for housing was precisely to engineer the situation we have now.

Labour governments have slavishly followed the same line, and the result is that we're galloping headlong back to the nineteenth century, with precious little social housing and millions of people left with no option but to pay inflated rents for sub-standard housing. The gap between wages and house prices is simply too vast for many people to be able to bridge no matter how hard they work and save.

Poor housing impacts on society as a whole, bringing as it does poor health and under-achievement.

A concerted programme of council house building could make serious inroads into the problem, whilst providing a shot in the arm for the whole economy.

But of course the billionaire tax-dodgers will throw their hands up and horror and maintain that we can't afford it.

In fact we can't afford NOT to resolve this problem, just as our forebears did in the aftermath of two world wars when the country had considerably less wealth than it does now, but when the government was prepared to grasp the nettle and make those at the top of society pay their share.
Oaklands Resident is dead right to say, "The money that was raised from Council house sales in the 70's & 80's should have been reinvested in new housing." Unfortunately the Tories' aim in forbidding the use of the money for housing was precisely to engineer the situation we have now. Labour governments have slavishly followed the same line, and the result is that we're galloping headlong back to the nineteenth century, with precious little social housing and millions of people left with no option but to pay inflated rents for sub-standard housing. The gap between wages and house prices is simply too vast for many people to be able to bridge no matter how hard they work and save. Poor housing impacts on society as a whole, bringing as it does poor health and under-achievement. A concerted programme of council house building could make serious inroads into the problem, whilst providing a shot in the arm for the whole economy. But of course the billionaire tax-dodgers will throw their hands up and horror and maintain that we can't afford it. In fact we can't afford NOT to resolve this problem, just as our forebears did in the aftermath of two world wars when the country had considerably less wealth than it does now, but when the government was prepared to grasp the nettle and make those at the top of society pay their share. Zetkin

1:47pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Anotherslownewsday says...

I find it alarming that Meme thinks housing is not a 'right'. I would say it is a basic human right to have a roof over your head. And why on earth is getting on the housing ladder so important anyway especially now. Zetkin is talking a lot of sense, and yes , it was not the council's fault that right to buy money was not spent on new housing, nor is it their fault that their is a dearth of new affordable housing in York today.
I find it alarming that Meme thinks housing is not a 'right'. I would say it is a basic human right to have a roof over your head. And why on earth is getting on the housing ladder so important anyway especially now. Zetkin is talking a lot of sense, and yes , it was not the council's fault that right to buy money was not spent on new housing, nor is it their fault that their is a dearth of new affordable housing in York today. Anotherslownewsday

1:56pm Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

you are right I said it was not an automatic right that one was given to you just because you wanted one. I thought my narrative made that clear. Anyone facing homelessness shoud be given shelter but not given luxury unit just because they think its their right.
I have just heard a news item where Newham council are taking someone to court as they supply them with unsuitable housing in London and want them to move to a property that has been offerred in Birmingham. He does not work and never has.
They are offerring a suitable house just not where he wants to be
Is this right? Is this a suitable solution ot York If you desperatly want a house but dont want to pay for it should people be made ot move where they are in oversupply and available at affordable levels.. or stay with parents/friends or in hostels in a location they want to live in such areas near here are Selby/Leeds/Middlesb
rough/Bradford etc after all a warm dry home is what is required not necessarily where you want it?
I make no comment but expect some to be made although the phrase 'beggars cannot be choosers' comes to mind
you are right I said it was not an automatic right that one was given to you just because you wanted one. I thought my narrative made that clear. Anyone facing homelessness shoud be given shelter but not given luxury unit just because they think its their right. I have just heard a news item where Newham council are taking someone to court as they supply them with unsuitable housing in London and want them to move to a property that has been offerred in Birmingham. He does not work and never has. They are offerring a suitable house just not where he wants to be Is this right? Is this a suitable solution ot York If you desperatly want a house but dont want to pay for it should people be made ot move where they are in oversupply and available at affordable levels.. or stay with parents/friends or in hostels in a location they want to live in such areas near here are Selby/Leeds/Middlesb rough/Bradford etc after all a warm dry home is what is required not necessarily where you want it? I make no comment but expect some to be made although the phrase 'beggars cannot be choosers' comes to mind meme

2:02pm Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

At the end, I am left wondering whether our city – which once mirrored the average population profile of England – is slowly becoming a haven for the well- heeled, a Winchester of the north, QUOTE FROM ARTICLE


When it did mirror the average it was a very poor City... Anyone remember the 60/70's in York? it was a dump.Now its not....The vast majority are far better off but a minority are as badly off as then
At the end, I am left wondering whether our city – which once mirrored the average population profile of England – is slowly becoming a haven for the well- heeled, a Winchester of the north, QUOTE FROM ARTICLE When it did mirror the average it was a very poor City... Anyone remember the 60/70's in York? it was a dump.Now its not....The vast majority are far better off but a minority are as badly off as then meme

2:43pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

John Hocking wrote, "York’s Housing Week was primarily about listening and sharing ideas, centred around a statement from one of the small builders who have been running an enthusiastic campaign against the council’s affordable housing programme. “If local people can’t afford what I build, does it matter?”

I was at this event, and am part of the group Mr Hocking refers to, but, I did not hear this comment. The event certainly was not 'centred' around this obscure meaningless statement. Has John Hocking misheard this, misquoted it, or simply made it up ?

There were more sensible comments made by the few who were at the event who are actually involved in private housebuilding. One suggestion was that the council drop the affordable housing requirement and allow private housebuilders to be able to make their stalled schemes viable.

The problem with this Council-run event, was that it was mainly attended by it's own officers, councillors, academics, and it's housing association pals like JRHT. Out of 80 on the attendee list; 38 were from the Council, plus 7 councillors. There was only one private housebuilder who is actually building houses in York (Shepherd Homes), and the main housebuilders like Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey did not attend. What does this tell you ? Either that the Council are rubbish at attracting the right audience, or that they don't want housebuilders there because they don't like to hear their opinions ?

I'm waiting for Coun Simpson-Laing to tell us, and to let us know what she intends to do to improve the mess that her housing policies have caused in York ?
[quote] John Hocking wrote, "York’s Housing Week was primarily about listening and sharing ideas, centred around a statement from one of the small builders who have been running an enthusiastic campaign against the council’s affordable housing programme. “If local people can’t afford what I build, does it matter?” [/quote] I was at this event, and am part of the group Mr Hocking refers to, but, I did not hear this comment. The event certainly was not 'centred' around this obscure meaningless statement. Has John Hocking misheard this, misquoted it, or simply made it up ? There were more sensible comments made by the few who were at the event who are actually involved in private housebuilding. One suggestion was that the council drop the affordable housing requirement and allow private housebuilders to be able to make their stalled schemes viable. The problem with this Council-run event, was that it was mainly attended by it's own officers, councillors, academics, and it's housing association pals like JRHT. Out of 80 on the attendee list; 38 were from the Council, plus 7 councillors. There was only one private housebuilder who is actually building houses in York (Shepherd Homes), and the main housebuilders like Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey did not attend. What does this tell you ? Either that the Council are rubbish at attracting the right audience, or that they don't want housebuilders there because they don't like to hear their opinions ? I'm waiting for Coun Simpson-Laing to tell us, and to let us know what she intends to do to improve the mess that her housing policies have caused in York ? Scarlet Pimpernel

2:52pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Kevin Turvey says...

Well I for one would rather live in a city with a higher standard of living rather than a dump, what is the problem with York going upmarket?

That fact that housing is a commodity is just tough; it has market forces, simple as, not my rules just the way it is!

You have no god given right to live where you want, only your personal financial circumstances dictate when and where can afford to live, there again it’s just the way it is.
If that means that poorer people are driven out of the city into poorer areas, that is nothing new in this country as nothing really has changed in the last 100 years.

The levels of social mobility have improved but only for those that are prepared to work for it.

If you expect what are effectively hand outs then the days of that have long gone, get the message – there is no more money for people to be living on the backs of others, the country is broke and heavily in debt, think it’s bad now wait until the next inevitable round of cuts and they will be very severe as the present deficit plan is working fast enough.

The greasy pole is the greasy pole and the Jo Ro trust will not change that in the next 20 years however well meaning.


PS.
I see the press photographer only walked about 20 metres from the press building to the nearest estate agent at the bridge on Fossgate, nice effort there!
Well I for one would rather live in a city with a higher standard of living rather than a dump, what is the problem with York going upmarket? That fact that housing is a commodity is just tough; it has market forces, simple as, not my rules just the way it is! You have no god given right to live where you want, only your personal financial circumstances dictate when and where can afford to live, there again it’s just the way it is. If that means that poorer people are driven out of the city into poorer areas, that is nothing new in this country as nothing really has changed in the last 100 years. The levels of social mobility have improved but only for those that are prepared to work for it. If you expect what are effectively hand outs then the days of that have long gone, get the message – there is no more money for people to be living on the backs of others, the country is broke and heavily in debt, think it’s bad now wait until the next inevitable round of cuts and they will be very severe as the present deficit plan is working fast enough. The greasy pole is the greasy pole and the Jo Ro trust will not change that in the next 20 years however well meaning. PS. I see the press photographer only walked about 20 metres from the press building to the nearest estate agent at the bridge on Fossgate, nice effort there! Kevin Turvey

2:56pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

By the way, Coun Simpson-Laing and Coun Alexander were at this event. They sat at the front, and apart from Coun Simpson-Laing saying a few forgettable words at the beginning and end of the three hours, the two of them spent almost the entire event fixated on their i-pads, tweeting ! Coun Alexander did 35 tweets during the event (I counted them afterwards) and only four were about the event itself, the rest were a mixture of party political rhetoric and his 'have a great time in York' tweets to any young, attractive, female visitor who mentions they are having a trip to the city ? !!!!!

This shows how interested the two of them are in solving York's housing crisis - complete apathy and disinterest. The truth is, they are happy that housing completions are at record low levels in York; so they can try and blame the coalition government. They have however, stupidly overlooked the fact that, York's figures are far worse than the rest of the country, which puts the blame back in theirs and the council's court. They are rubbish at housing policy and rubbish at trying to stitch-up the government, and it's time that they were made to answer for their failure.

GET THEM OUT ASAP !
By the way, Coun Simpson-Laing and Coun Alexander were at this event. They sat at the front, and apart from Coun Simpson-Laing saying a few forgettable words at the beginning and end of the three hours, the two of them spent almost the entire event fixated on their i-pads, tweeting ! Coun Alexander did 35 tweets during the event (I counted them afterwards) and only four were about the event itself, the rest were a mixture of party political rhetoric and his 'have a great time in York' tweets to any young, attractive, female visitor who mentions they are having a trip to the city ? !!!!! This shows how interested the two of them are in solving York's housing crisis - complete apathy and disinterest. The truth is, they are happy that housing completions are at record low levels in York; so they can try and blame the coalition government. They have however, stupidly overlooked the fact that, York's figures are far worse than the rest of the country, which puts the blame back in theirs and the council's court. They are rubbish at housing policy and rubbish at trying to stitch-up the government, and it's time that they were made to answer for their failure. [bold] GET THEM OUT ASAP ! [/bold] Scarlet Pimpernel

3:20pm Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

Actually I was there as well and I was not aware this was said and the event did not centre around this, I suspect, made up statement!
So Mr H can you tell us what else you have made up in this entire article?
Actually I was there as well and I was not aware this was said and the event did not centre around this, I suspect, made up statement! So Mr H can you tell us what else you have made up in this entire article? meme

3:21pm Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

Why don’t we build low-cost housing like prefabs for those on low income?” Quote from article

Good point..... why don't we?
Why don’t we build low-cost housing like prefabs for those on low income?” Quote from article Good point..... why don't we? meme

3:44pm Fri 23 Nov 12

meme says...

I have a great idea...
Why dont we just give everybody in the UK £50,000 a year whether they work or not. That will eradicate poverty or the need for lots of benefits/lots of councillors/charity workers/affordable homes and give us all lots of free time to spend, spend and spend more!
No body would complain again and people like Mr H would be out of a job but on £50K a year..All problems solved or is that what the Greeks tried?
I have a great idea... Why dont we just give everybody in the UK £50,000 a year whether they work or not. That will eradicate poverty or the need for lots of benefits/lots of councillors/charity workers/affordable homes and give us all lots of free time to spend, spend and spend more! No body would complain again and people like Mr H would be out of a job but on £50K a year..All problems solved or is that what the Greeks tried? meme

3:44pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

meme wrote:
Why don’t we build low-cost housing like prefabs for those on low income?” Quote from article Good point..... why don't we?
This I believe will be proved to be prophetic.

It is inevitable that low-cost solutions will be needed to address the problem, and councils will have to return to developing massive council housing schemes.

There is insufficient capacity in the private housebuilding and social housing sectors to address need/demand, and the industry will not grow quickly enough to avoid a worsening of the problem of under-supply. This has been obvious for a long time, and politicians and York council are burying their heads in the sand. It's time that they admitted the size and seriousness of the problem, and started to take radical brave steps to address it, before we end up with Dale Farms and shanty towns all over the UK.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Why don’t we build low-cost housing like prefabs for those on low income?” Quote from article Good point..... why don't we?[/p][/quote]This I believe will be proved to be prophetic. It is inevitable that low-cost solutions will be needed to address the problem, and councils will have to return to developing massive council housing schemes. There is insufficient capacity in the private housebuilding and social housing sectors to address need/demand, and the industry will not grow quickly enough to avoid a worsening of the problem of under-supply. This has been obvious for a long time, and politicians and York council are burying their heads in the sand. It's time that they admitted the size and seriousness of the problem, and started to take radical brave steps to address it, before we end up with Dale Farms and shanty towns all over the UK. Scarlet Pimpernel

5:40pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Already people are moving to caravan parks - there is a real demand for 12 month lets in these places. US trailer park style situation is coming.

Quite simply this is a demand and supply problem. Successive governments have either not built, sold off social housing, or a combination of both.

Only solution is more houses of ANY type- they all go into the stock pool and free up homes at the bottom end as people move up the ladder. At the moment the ladder is too high for most first-timers due to simple supply-restricted, inflation bubble over the last two or three decades.

To me it is that simple but successive governments know borrowing against bricks and mortar is what has been fueling the false booms. That and no politician has been brave enough to say homes are over-priced. Which of course they are.

Political problem making a demand and supply problem worse.
Already people are moving to caravan parks - there is a real demand for 12 month lets in these places. US trailer park style situation is coming. Quite simply this is a demand and supply problem. Successive governments have either not built, sold off social housing, or a combination of both. Only solution is more houses of ANY type- they all go into the stock pool and free up homes at the bottom end as people move up the ladder. At the moment the ladder is too high for most first-timers due to simple supply-restricted, inflation bubble over the last two or three decades. To me it is that simple but successive governments know borrowing against bricks and mortar is what has been fueling the false booms. That and no politician has been brave enough to say homes are over-priced. Which of course they are. Political problem making a demand and supply problem worse. Even AndyD

5:47pm Fri 23 Nov 12

bloodaxe says...

Pedro wrote:
There are many tools on the web (example below) to compare prices over periods of time. Many people think they have made a fortune on their houses, but have actually only kept up with inflation.

York has many problems which will never be solved. Green belt and limited brown field sites. Many people live outside of York (Selby, Haxby, etc.) because they can't afford anything here. If the station at Haxby was re-opened (and it might) then that would help.

http://www.thisismon

ey.co.uk/money/bills

/article-1633409/His

toric-inflation-calc

ulator-value-money-c

hanged-1900.html
Haxby is part of the city of York, both politically and physically. To suggest that people move to Haxby because it is "affordable" is palpable nonsense. With a population of 17000, Haxby and Wigginton are probably close to maximum practical size. Part ofYork's problem is that there are a lot of brownfield sites waiting to be developed, not a few. One way to clear the present impasse would be for councils to be able to borrow money at low rates without government permission and then use the rents to pay the loans off. This would kick start the housing industry, provide jobs and by easing the housing crisis help to stabilise prices. Of course one of the elephants in the room here is the massive distortion in house prices caused by the south east of England, where London prices have been massively inflated by overseas investors. This radiates outward and puts pressure on the rest of the country. The problem is being compounded by London councils moving families from unaffordable London to other areas, thus putting pressure on their housing situation.
[quote][p][bold]Pedro[/bold] wrote: There are many tools on the web (example below) to compare prices over periods of time. Many people think they have made a fortune on their houses, but have actually only kept up with inflation. York has many problems which will never be solved. Green belt and limited brown field sites. Many people live outside of York (Selby, Haxby, etc.) because they can't afford anything here. If the station at Haxby was re-opened (and it might) then that would help. http://www.thisismon ey.co.uk/money/bills /article-1633409/His toric-inflation-calc ulator-value-money-c hanged-1900.html[/p][/quote]Haxby is part of the city of York, both politically and physically. To suggest that people move to Haxby because it is "affordable" is palpable nonsense. With a population of 17000, Haxby and Wigginton are probably close to maximum practical size. Part ofYork's problem is that there are a lot of brownfield sites waiting to be developed, not a few. One way to clear the present impasse would be for councils to be able to borrow money at low rates without government permission and then use the rents to pay the loans off. This would kick start the housing industry, provide jobs and by easing the housing crisis help to stabilise prices. Of course one of the elephants in the room here is the massive distortion in house prices caused by the south east of England, where London prices have been massively inflated by overseas investors. This radiates outward and puts pressure on the rest of the country. The problem is being compounded by London councils moving families from unaffordable London to other areas, thus putting pressure on their housing situation. bloodaxe

6:49pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

The joke about relocating people is that by and large, they are moved from where there are jobs (London) to unemployment black spots. Not only is the policy morally dubious, it is also likely to economically unsound too.
The joke about relocating people is that by and large, they are moved from where there are jobs (London) to unemployment black spots. Not only is the policy morally dubious, it is also likely to economically unsound too. Even AndyD

6:56pm Fri 23 Nov 12

YSTClinguist says...

The housing in York has shot through the roof since the end of the 1980's. It's a safe city to bring kids up in, a reason many people have moved here. But when those kids are born here, educated here, then find they have to move away because the accommodation prices have skyrocketed it breaks up families, and community ties.

For minimum wage working families who have their wages topped up with benefit payments (housing/council tax) next year when council tax is handed over to local government will see massive housing problems as our council is likely to force these families to cover the first 30% of the council tax. Lord Freud has said they should be transported to Tadcaster, Selby and Malton and commute back in. A lot of these workers already walk to work as it is. The cost of unsubsidised public transport will cost far more than the 30% of council tax. The actions and reactions spouted out of politicians mouths are frankly unbelievable. They are bite sized comments that fail at logic and basic maths.

After so long of not building new houses, austerity prevents councils having the money to build functional cheap housing for families. Adam Reith (comment above) says after marriage they lived in a bedsit for 18 months to save for the deposit on a house. You simply couldn't do this today, not if you're a minimum wage worker, not even if you're a 'living wage' worker.

We live in a tourist city that has become "rich" but the workers who staff the tills, service tables, stack the shelves, if they can't live here, will the rich find themselves wondering why they can't part with their money with no one there to serve them?
The housing in York has shot through the roof since the end of the 1980's. It's a safe city to bring kids up in, a reason many people have moved here. But when those kids are born here, educated here, then find they have to move away because the accommodation prices have skyrocketed it breaks up families, and community ties. For minimum wage working families who have their wages topped up with benefit payments (housing/council tax) next year when council tax is handed over to local government will see massive housing problems as our council is likely to force these families to cover the first 30% of the council tax. Lord Freud has said they should be transported to Tadcaster, Selby and Malton and commute back in. A lot of these workers already walk to work as it is. The cost of unsubsidised public transport will cost far more than the 30% of council tax. The actions and reactions spouted out of politicians mouths are frankly unbelievable. They are bite sized comments that fail at logic and basic maths. After so long of not building new houses, austerity prevents councils having the money to build functional cheap housing for families. Adam Reith (comment above) says after marriage they lived in a bedsit for 18 months to save for the deposit on a house. You simply couldn't do this today, not if you're a minimum wage worker, not even if you're a 'living wage' worker. We live in a tourist city that has become "rich" but the workers who staff the tills, service tables, stack the shelves, if they can't live here, will the rich find themselves wondering why they can't part with their money with no one there to serve them? YSTClinguist

7:34pm Fri 23 Nov 12

eeoodares says...

If you can not afford to buy a house, what is wrong with renting? It is not unusual in many other countries?
If you can not afford to buy a house, what is wrong with renting? It is not unusual in many other countries? eeoodares

7:50pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Lots of comments on the problem, but very few suggestions for workable solutions.

It's clear that it is an undersupply problem, but, what is holding back supply, and what can be done by the Council to stimulate activity, and uncock the stalled sites ?
Lots of comments on the problem, but very few suggestions for workable solutions. It's clear that it is an undersupply problem, but, what is holding back supply, and what can be done by the Council to stimulate activity, and uncock the stalled sites ? Scarlet Pimpernel

7:52pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Oops, sorry for the typo.... I meant, 'unlock' the stalled sites !
Oops, sorry for the typo.... I meant, 'unlock' the stalled sites ! Scarlet Pimpernel

7:58pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Even AndyD wrote:
The joke about relocating people is that by and large, they are moved from where there are jobs (London) to unemployment black spots. Not only is the policy morally dubious, it is also likely to economically unsound too.
Does this actually apply to York ?

How many people are you aware of who have moved here from London without jobs, who need social housing ?

People usually relocate because that is where their work is, as in the case of Hiscox, for instance.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: The joke about relocating people is that by and large, they are moved from where there are jobs (London) to unemployment black spots. Not only is the policy morally dubious, it is also likely to economically unsound too.[/p][/quote]Does this actually apply to York ? How many people are you aware of who have moved here from London without jobs, who need social housing ? People usually relocate because that is where their work is, as in the case of Hiscox, for instance. Scarlet Pimpernel

8:04pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Whilst on the subject of relocating, and in particular the Hiscox situation. Hiscox have actually been critical of York because of the lack of new housing for their presumably well-paid staff who are relocating here. This is another result of the short-sightedness of the Council's housing policies. There is also a need for quality private housing, as without it companies will not relocate staff here and will take their business elsewhere. If York wants jobs and growth, it needs to provide all types of housing not just the affordable (social) variety ! This is a point that Coun Simpson-Laing seems to be oblivious of ? !!!!
Whilst on the subject of relocating, and in particular the Hiscox situation. Hiscox have actually been critical of York because of the lack of new housing for their presumably well-paid staff who are relocating here. This is another result of the short-sightedness of the Council's housing policies. There is also a need for quality private housing, as without it companies will not relocate staff here and will take their business elsewhere. If York wants jobs and growth, it needs to provide all types of housing not just the affordable (social) variety ! This is a point that Coun Simpson-Laing seems to be oblivious of ? !!!! Scarlet Pimpernel

8:21pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
The joke about relocating people is that by and large, they are moved from where there are jobs (London) to unemployment black spots. Not only is the policy morally dubious, it is also likely to economically unsound too.
Does this actually apply to York ?

How many people are you aware of who have moved here from London without jobs, who need social housing ?

People usually relocate because that is where their work is, as in the case of Hiscox, for instance.
No. I was commenting nationally.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: The joke about relocating people is that by and large, they are moved from where there are jobs (London) to unemployment black spots. Not only is the policy morally dubious, it is also likely to economically unsound too.[/p][/quote]Does this actually apply to York ? How many people are you aware of who have moved here from London without jobs, who need social housing ? People usually relocate because that is where their work is, as in the case of Hiscox, for instance.[/p][/quote]No. I was commenting nationally. Even AndyD

8:28pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke.
In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.
It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke. In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all. Even AndyD

9:11pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Even AndyD wrote:
It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke.
In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.
Stop demonising private landlords.

Taxpayers money is also flooding into sky TV, mobile phone networks, bookmakers, pubs, cigarette manufacturers, McDonalds etc. It's called consumerism. There is no crime in it.

The crime is when politicians use housing policy in a destructive way - stopping private housebuilding by making unworkable demands for social housing, which is just another punitive discriminatory tax which no other industry has to pay. Start demonising Couns Alexander, Merrett, and Simpson-Laing, who are all guilty of using these policies to make political mischief whilst causing further misery to those in need of housing. They need to be challenged and exposed.
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke. In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.[/p][/quote]Stop demonising private landlords. Taxpayers money is also flooding into sky TV, mobile phone networks, bookmakers, pubs, cigarette manufacturers, McDonalds etc. It's called consumerism. There is no crime in it. The crime is when politicians use housing policy in a destructive way - stopping private housebuilding by making unworkable demands for social housing, which is just another punitive discriminatory tax which no other industry has to pay. Start demonising Couns Alexander, Merrett, and Simpson-Laing, who are all guilty of using these policies to make political mischief whilst causing further misery to those in need of housing. They need to be challenged and exposed. Scarlet Pimpernel

9:22pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Even AndyD wrote:
It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke.
In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.
Private landlords are not the cause of the problem, but, they are part of the solution.

As I said, stop demonising them, and aim your criticism at the politicians and the devious, politicised council officers, who have manipulated housing policy at York Council, with devastating consequences. They are driving up rents by holding back supply, but, these well-paid tax-payer funded 'officers' have a protected cosy existence. If they were in the private sector, their antics and failures would be punished by the issuing of P45's !
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke. In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.[/p][/quote]Private landlords are not the cause of the problem, but, they are part of the solution. As I said, stop demonising them, and aim your criticism at the politicians and the devious, politicised council officers, who have manipulated housing policy at York Council, with devastating consequences. They are driving up rents by holding back supply, but, these well-paid tax-payer funded 'officers' have a protected cosy existence. If they were in the private sector, their antics and failures would be punished by the issuing of P45's ! Scarlet Pimpernel

9:23pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke.
In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.
Stop demonising private landlords.

Taxpayers money is also flooding into sky TV, mobile phone networks, bookmakers, pubs, cigarette manufacturers, McDonalds etc. It's called consumerism. There is no crime in it.

The crime is when politicians use housing policy in a destructive way - stopping private housebuilding by making unworkable demands for social housing, which is just another punitive discriminatory tax which no other industry has to pay. Start demonising Couns Alexander, Merrett, and Simpson-Laing, who are all guilty of using these policies to make political mischief whilst causing further misery to those in need of housing. They need to be challenged and exposed.
I give in. We largely agree with the need for more housing. I never once said I was demonising private landlords, more the legislation which has led to the current situation.
I mean are you insane? Do you honestly think I expect private landlords to be saints and give their money away? No - like the rest of society they are entitled to seek profit within given legislation.
With respect SP, back off, don't see demons where they do not exist.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke. In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.[/p][/quote]Stop demonising private landlords. Taxpayers money is also flooding into sky TV, mobile phone networks, bookmakers, pubs, cigarette manufacturers, McDonalds etc. It's called consumerism. There is no crime in it. The crime is when politicians use housing policy in a destructive way - stopping private housebuilding by making unworkable demands for social housing, which is just another punitive discriminatory tax which no other industry has to pay. Start demonising Couns Alexander, Merrett, and Simpson-Laing, who are all guilty of using these policies to make political mischief whilst causing further misery to those in need of housing. They need to be challenged and exposed.[/p][/quote]I give in. We largely agree with the need for more housing. I never once said I was demonising private landlords, more the legislation which has led to the current situation. I mean are you insane? Do you honestly think I expect private landlords to be saints and give their money away? No - like the rest of society they are entitled to seek profit within given legislation. With respect SP, back off, don't see demons where they do not exist. Even AndyD

9:25pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke.
In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.
Private landlords are not the cause of the problem, but, they are part of the solution.

As I said, stop demonising them, and aim your criticism at the politicians and the devious, politicised council officers, who have manipulated housing policy at York Council, with devastating consequences. They are driving up rents by holding back supply, but, these well-paid tax-payer funded 'officers' have a protected cosy existence. If they were in the private sector, their antics and failures would be punished by the issuing of P45's !
Sigh. I have aimed my criticism at the politicians. Re-read what I said. Re-read what I said. Re-read what I said. Re-read what I said.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: It is like the rent cap. Okay, the Tories brought it in, but countless governments since have left it there so Labour aren't without blame. The result? Taxpayer money is flooding into private landlord pockets to such an extent that the 'solution' is to ship people from their (say) London home and roots and dump them in Stoke. In days past EVERY area would have housing to fit the pocket of all.[/p][/quote]Private landlords are not the cause of the problem, but, they are part of the solution. As I said, stop demonising them, and aim your criticism at the politicians and the devious, politicised council officers, who have manipulated housing policy at York Council, with devastating consequences. They are driving up rents by holding back supply, but, these well-paid tax-payer funded 'officers' have a protected cosy existence. If they were in the private sector, their antics and failures would be punished by the issuing of P45's ![/p][/quote]Sigh. I have aimed my criticism at the politicians. Re-read what I said. Re-read what I said. Re-read what I said. Re-read what I said. Even AndyD

9:27pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.
We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang. Even AndyD

9:30pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

We need to build more houses. Current political ideology which restricts that is damaging. HELLO - Andy calling, Andy calling! Am I typing in shorthand here?
We need to build more houses. Current political ideology which restricts that is damaging. HELLO - Andy calling, Andy calling! Am I typing in shorthand here? Even AndyD

9:39pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Even AndyD wrote:
We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.
You never criticise the Councillors and the Council though. Anyone would think that you work for them !

Come on, if you really do agree, then lets hear who you think is holding York back with too much regulatory burden.

You might even tweet criticism to the culprits, instead of sucking up to them ? ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.[/p][/quote]You never criticise the Councillors and the Council though. Anyone would think that you work for them ! Come on, if you really do agree, then lets hear who you think is holding York back with too much regulatory burden. You might even tweet criticism to the culprits, instead of sucking up to them ? ;-) Scarlet Pimpernel

9:45pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Even AndyD wrote:
We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.
I know how it feels - I have been banging on about it for years, and it's like banging your head against a brick wall, because the council will not listen to a handful of developers. They might however take more notice if people like you told them that you agree with us. Don't just generalise, stating the obvious, like, 'more houses need to be built'. Say who is at fault, and what needs to be done. Tell Coun Alexander that the Council's affordable housing policy is to blame, and needs rolling back. Come on, show some balls !!!!
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.[/p][/quote]I know how it feels - I have been banging on about it for years, and it's like banging your head against a brick wall, because the council will not listen to a handful of developers. They might however take more notice if people like you told them that you agree with us. Don't just generalise, stating the obvious, like, 'more houses need to be built'. Say who is at fault, and what needs to be done. Tell Coun Alexander that the Council's affordable housing policy is to blame, and needs rolling back. Come on, show some balls !!!! Scarlet Pimpernel

9:45pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

I have often been critical of JA. Never met the guy, but said prior to election that he did Labour more harm than good. In my opinion. Was also against the Beckfield tip decision is a big way. It will lead to fly tipping, as I've seen recently in the area where I live
I've spent 25 of my 44 working years in the private sector, I now have a temp. contract in the public - is that a crime? Made the change because I have two disabled children and I needed the flexibility. Worked bloody hard to retrain - is that a crime?
I think the housing policy in York is wrong. Demand and supply will sort the housing problem - not restrictions. You want that in blood, or happy with it in black and white type?
I speak as I see things. Genuinely, I am sorry if that offends. Am just a guy with no political office who says as he sees it. If I get it wrong so be it - but I don't have an agenda. My life is bloody complicated and stressful enough thanks without that. See?
I have often been critical of JA. Never met the guy, but said prior to election that he did Labour more harm than good. In my opinion. Was also against the Beckfield tip decision is a big way. It will lead to fly tipping, as I've seen recently in the area where I live I've spent 25 of my 44 working years in the private sector, I now have a temp. contract in the public - is that a crime? Made the change because I have two disabled children and I needed the flexibility. Worked bloody hard to retrain - is that a crime? I think the housing policy in York is wrong. Demand and supply will sort the housing problem - not restrictions. You want that in blood, or happy with it in black and white type? I speak as I see things. Genuinely, I am sorry if that offends. Am just a guy with no political office who says as he sees it. If I get it wrong so be it - but I don't have an agenda. My life is bloody complicated and stressful enough thanks without that. See? Even AndyD

10:02pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

You haven't been working 44 years Andy - you are 44 years old, but, you can issue a correction. We will forgive you for that slip of the tongue.

No crime at all in working for the Council - a lot of decent hardwoking people do, including no doubt, yourself. The crime is their housing policy, and even worse pretending that it works, and denying that it caused so much damage.

Chill Andy, you have said enough, and we are on the same side of this argument. We both want what's best for York and it's people, unlike some councillors who are disingenuos, and have other agendas.
You haven't been working 44 years Andy - you are 44 years old, but, you can issue a correction. We will forgive you for that slip of the tongue. No crime at all in working for the Council - a lot of decent hardwoking people do, including no doubt, yourself. The crime is their housing policy, and even worse pretending that it works, and denying that it caused so much damage. Chill Andy, you have said enough, and we are on the same side of this argument. We both want what's best for York and it's people, unlike some councillors who are disingenuos, and have other agendas. Scarlet Pimpernel

10:06pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Even AndyD wrote:
We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.
I know how it feels - I have been banging on about it for years, and it's like banging your head against a brick wall, because the council will not listen to a handful of developers. They might however take more notice if people like you told them that you agree with us. Don't just generalise, stating the obvious, like, 'more houses need to be built'. Say who is at fault, and what needs to be done. Tell Coun Alexander that the Council's affordable housing policy is to blame, and needs rolling back. Come on, show some balls !!!!
With respect, I don't know who is at fault. I don't know enough about the situation - although as I've said, I don't think any restrictions are a good idea.
Affordable housing isn't central to my life. Do you see?

Whilst I can sympathise and I do see what you mean and have been educated about it by you and your fellow forumites, I will remain on the side lines because we can't all be giving 100% of our attention to everything.

Let me give you an example. If the Glenn respite centre in York were shut by this Labour Council I would be as vocal as you. My family NEED time off two kids with severe disablities or frankly, we could not function. There are limits to anyone's endurance. I would be just like you - campaigning, meeting, Press comments etc.

But with AH, I'm a passing commentator, that is all. But I do try. Really I do. You've taught me a fair bit. But you have to accept I can't join the 'cause' because I'm just a person. One little non-entity with his own issues.

What I do object to is being labelled. If you REALLY asked JA, he would say I was a pain before he was elected. I thought his negative campaign against other parties was naive and counter-productive. I was so vocal, he even emailed me. Nothing like a Labour supporter who doesn't support you to get the back up. Since then I've agreed with some things and not others. But I'm not God, y'know. I don't have a divine right to be correct. But I really DO say it as I see it. For better or worse.

Rant over - but honestly - needed saying - I like commenting on here, but sometimes you think - hey, I don't need this. Called a sycophant and worse, Twitter monitored - actually most of my twitter activity was mental health/disability related, but I did sometimes comment on JA or even, heaven forbid, KE. But I'm keen to improve autism provision in York because THAT is my obsession. I don't want my kids to leave school and then fall off the cliff end of provision. Because that is what happens at the moment - there is very little in York for disabled adults. I volunteer to work with some of them - because THAT is my obsession and the thing I want to change. See?

Sorry to go on- but I'm human too and get frustrated. Hope this helps. We really do need that pint - I'll even buy. :-)
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.[/p][/quote]I know how it feels - I have been banging on about it for years, and it's like banging your head against a brick wall, because the council will not listen to a handful of developers. They might however take more notice if people like you told them that you agree with us. Don't just generalise, stating the obvious, like, 'more houses need to be built'. Say who is at fault, and what needs to be done. Tell Coun Alexander that the Council's affordable housing policy is to blame, and needs rolling back. Come on, show some balls !!!![/p][/quote]With respect, I don't know who is at fault. I don't know enough about the situation - although as I've said, I don't think any restrictions are a good idea. Affordable housing isn't central to my life. Do you see? Whilst I can sympathise and I do see what you mean and have been educated about it by you and your fellow forumites, I will remain on the side lines because we can't all be giving 100% of our attention to everything. Let me give you an example. If the Glenn respite centre in York were shut by this Labour Council I would be as vocal as you. My family NEED time off two kids with severe disablities or frankly, we could not function. There are limits to anyone's endurance. I would be just like you - campaigning, meeting, Press comments etc. But with AH, I'm a passing commentator, that is all. But I do try. Really I do. You've taught me a fair bit. But you have to accept I can't join the 'cause' because I'm just a person. One little non-entity with his own issues. What I do object to is being labelled. If you REALLY asked JA, he would say I was a pain before he was elected. I thought his negative campaign against other parties was naive and counter-productive. I was so vocal, he even emailed me. Nothing like a Labour supporter who doesn't support you to get the back up. Since then I've agreed with some things and not others. But I'm not God, y'know. I don't have a divine right to be correct. But I really DO say it as I see it. For better or worse. Rant over - but honestly - needed saying - I like commenting on here, but sometimes you think - hey, I don't need this. Called a sycophant and worse, Twitter monitored - actually most of my twitter activity was mental health/disability related, but I did sometimes comment on JA or even, heaven forbid, KE. But I'm keen to improve autism provision in York because THAT is my obsession. I don't want my kids to leave school and then fall off the cliff end of provision. Because that is what happens at the moment - there is very little in York for disabled adults. I volunteer to work with some of them - because THAT is my obsession and the thing I want to change. See? Sorry to go on- but I'm human too and get frustrated. Hope this helps. We really do need that pint - I'll even buy. :-) Even AndyD

10:07pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
You haven't been working 44 years Andy - you are 44 years old, but, you can issue a correction. We will forgive you for that slip of the tongue.

No crime at all in working for the Council - a lot of decent hardwoking people do, including no doubt, yourself. The crime is their housing policy, and even worse pretending that it works, and denying that it caused so much damage.

Chill Andy, you have said enough, and we are on the same side of this argument. We both want what's best for York and it's people, unlike some councillors who are disingenuos, and have other agendas.
Yes - slip of the typing finger - 25 of my 44yrs.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: You haven't been working 44 years Andy - you are 44 years old, but, you can issue a correction. We will forgive you for that slip of the tongue. No crime at all in working for the Council - a lot of decent hardwoking people do, including no doubt, yourself. The crime is their housing policy, and even worse pretending that it works, and denying that it caused so much damage. Chill Andy, you have said enough, and we are on the same side of this argument. We both want what's best for York and it's people, unlike some councillors who are disingenuos, and have other agendas.[/p][/quote]Yes - slip of the typing finger - 25 of my 44yrs. Even AndyD

10:16pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Andy, respect to you for your support of a worthwhile, deserving cause - keep it up !

I'll gladly buy you a pint ;-)
Andy, respect to you for your support of a worthwhile, deserving cause - keep it up ! I'll gladly buy you a pint ;-) Scarlet Pimpernel

10:24pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Even AndyD says...

Tragedy is - over a beer, we'd probably have a **** good night! Nowt better than chewing the fat with someone on the other side of the political divide - love it! But given you know who I am and I don't have a clue re you - you need to be the one to pigeon hole me. Maybe one day - but in the meantime - best of luck to ya!
Tragedy is - over a beer, we'd probably have a **** good night! Nowt better than chewing the fat with someone on the other side of the political divide - love it! But given you know who I am and I don't have a clue re you - you need to be the one to pigeon hole me. Maybe one day - but in the meantime - best of luck to ya! Even AndyD

10:31pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

John Hocking wrote, "York’s Housing Week was primarily about listening and sharing ideas, centred around a statement from one of the small builders who have been running an enthusiastic campaign against the council’s affordable housing programme......."


Can I just correct John Hocking on this misleading description. The campaign is not against an affordable housing programme. A programme is different to the specific policy which we object to. The policy is the council's requirement that uses the planning system (S106 obligation) to force private developers to provide an element of affordable (social) housing. For 5yrs and 9months (Apr 2005 - Dec 2010) this was a 50%target, and this was illegitimate and killed housebuilding in York. It was kept in place without justification for far longer than it should have been allowed, and cost York's economy hundreds of millions and many lost jobs. The current reduced are still too high, and unworkable.

John Hocking is an educated housing expert and his mis-description of our campaign is aimed at discrediting us. He is out of order, and should issue an apology.
[quote] John Hocking wrote, "York’s Housing Week was primarily about listening and sharing ideas, centred around a statement from one of the small builders who have been running an enthusiastic campaign against the council’s affordable housing programme......." [/quote] Can I just correct John Hocking on this misleading description. The campaign is not against an affordable housing programme. A programme is different to the specific policy which we object to. The policy is the council's requirement that uses the planning system (S106 obligation) to force private developers to provide an element of affordable (social) housing. For 5yrs and 9months (Apr 2005 - Dec 2010) this was a 50%target, and this was illegitimate and killed housebuilding in York. It was kept in place without justification for far longer than it should have been allowed, and cost York's economy hundreds of millions and many lost jobs. The current reduced are still too high, and unworkable. John Hocking is an educated housing expert and his mis-description of our campaign is aimed at discrediting us. He is out of order, and should issue an apology. Scarlet Pimpernel

10:36pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Sorry, it's late, and I'm tired, and I made another typo. I meant to say, 'the current reduced targets are still too high'
Sorry, it's late, and I'm tired, and I made another typo. I meant to say, 'the current reduced targets are still too high' Scarlet Pimpernel

10:38pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Andy, to find out who I am, just ask James Alexander when you next speak to him - he knows !
Andy, to find out who I am, just ask James Alexander when you next speak to him - he knows ! Scarlet Pimpernel

10:38pm Fri 23 Nov 12

capt spaulding says...

Even AndyD wrote:
We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.
Im warming to you keep on banging
[quote][p][bold]Even AndyD[/bold] wrote: We agree!! Do you understand - we agree! If that is unpalatable to you - then get your mate to string up another effigy of me. Demand and supply is the problem as I said. Not enough houses are being built, as I said. We need more houses built. Houses built we need more of. Of built houses need we more. Lol. Oh look a brick wall - head bang - head bang - head bang -head bang -head bang -head bang.[/p][/quote]Im warming to you keep on banging capt spaulding

10:58pm Fri 23 Nov 12

bob the builder says...

York is full of brownfield sites, former grain store Water Lane, British Sugar, former Civil Service sportsground, Terry's, parts of Nestle to name five off the top of my head. If you want affordable housing someone has to pay for it - the taxpayer or the resident? The developer exists to make money to pay his employees and shareholders not plug the gap left by political mismanagement of social housing. Personally I'd like to see JoRo sort this out, they are very good at pointing out the obvious.
York is full of brownfield sites, former grain store Water Lane, British Sugar, former Civil Service sportsground, Terry's, parts of Nestle to name five off the top of my head. If you want affordable housing someone has to pay for it - the taxpayer or the resident? The developer exists to make money to pay his employees and shareholders not plug the gap left by political mismanagement of social housing. Personally I'd like to see JoRo sort this out, they are very good at pointing out the obvious. bob the builder

12:06am Sat 24 Nov 12

yorkborn66 says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
Well I for one would rather live in a city with a higher standard of living rather than a dump, what is the problem with York going upmarket?

That fact that housing is a commodity is just tough; it has market forces, simple as, not my rules just the way it is!

You have no god given right to live where you want, only your personal financial circumstances dictate when and where can afford to live, there again it’s just the way it is.
If that means that poorer people are driven out of the city into poorer areas, that is nothing new in this country as nothing really has changed in the last 100 years.

The levels of social mobility have improved but only for those that are prepared to work for it.

If you expect what are effectively hand outs then the days of that have long gone, get the message – there is no more money for people to be living on the backs of others, the country is broke and heavily in debt, think it’s bad now wait until the next inevitable round of cuts and they will be very severe as the present deficit plan is working fast enough.

The greasy pole is the greasy pole and the Jo Ro trust will not change that in the next 20 years however well meaning.


PS.
I see the press photographer only walked about 20 metres from the press building to the nearest estate agent at the bridge on Fossgate, nice effort there!
This type of comment makes my blood boil.
If I had my way council and social housing in York should only be offered to a person or persons that was born in York or can demonstrate that their family has lived hear for generations.
Families are been torn apart due to unemployment and lack of true investment in jobs for York. A cashiers wage and likewise does not bring in the income for a ridiculously inflated property for a mortgage.
York’s property prices escalated when the electrification of the railway line to London happened. I know people living in a 2 bedroom flat in Walthamstow, moving to York, paying their mortgage off and buying the property in York outright with the equality remaining.
People born in York and their families are been forced out; this is immoral, time for change.
York is turning into a yuppie cesspit .
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: Well I for one would rather live in a city with a higher standard of living rather than a dump, what is the problem with York going upmarket? That fact that housing is a commodity is just tough; it has market forces, simple as, not my rules just the way it is! You have no god given right to live where you want, only your personal financial circumstances dictate when and where can afford to live, there again it’s just the way it is. If that means that poorer people are driven out of the city into poorer areas, that is nothing new in this country as nothing really has changed in the last 100 years. The levels of social mobility have improved but only for those that are prepared to work for it. If you expect what are effectively hand outs then the days of that have long gone, get the message – there is no more money for people to be living on the backs of others, the country is broke and heavily in debt, think it’s bad now wait until the next inevitable round of cuts and they will be very severe as the present deficit plan is working fast enough. The greasy pole is the greasy pole and the Jo Ro trust will not change that in the next 20 years however well meaning. PS. I see the press photographer only walked about 20 metres from the press building to the nearest estate agent at the bridge on Fossgate, nice effort there![/p][/quote]This type of comment makes my blood boil. If I had my way council and social housing in York should only be offered to a person or persons that was born in York or can demonstrate that their family has lived hear for generations. Families are been torn apart due to unemployment and lack of true investment in jobs for York. A cashiers wage and likewise does not bring in the income for a ridiculously inflated property for a mortgage. York’s property prices escalated when the electrification of the railway line to London happened. I know people living in a 2 bedroom flat in Walthamstow, moving to York, paying their mortgage off and buying the property in York outright with the equality remaining. People born in York and their families are been forced out; this is immoral, time for change. York is turning into a yuppie cesspit . yorkborn66

12:09am Sat 24 Nov 12

yorkborn66 says...

here !
here ! yorkborn66

1:00am Sat 24 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

John Hocking wrote, "Earlier this year, the City of York Council received a rap over the knuckles from the Government’s planning inspector over the inadequacy of its plans for future housing provision.

With that, we were sent back to square one in the development plan game"


John Hocking is wrong again.

The planiining inspector didn't derail the LDF because of the inadequacy of the Council's housing provision in the Core Strategy. The LDF was derailed because the Council had no choice than to withdraw it because they granted planning for the MX2 scheme (including the new stadium) which went against the LDF. The Council shot itself in the foot by breaking it's own policy !

Mr Hocking is either mis-informed, or is trying to rewrite history, either way, he should know better, and after making at least two gaffs in this article, his credibility is as on a par with Coun Simpson-Laing's.....
. about zero !
[quote] John Hocking wrote, "Earlier this year, the City of York Council received a rap over the knuckles from the Government’s planning inspector over the inadequacy of its plans for future housing provision. With that, we were sent back to square one in the development plan game" [/quote] John Hocking is wrong again. The planiining inspector didn't derail the LDF because of the inadequacy of the Council's housing provision in the Core Strategy. The LDF was derailed because the Council had no choice than to withdraw it because they granted planning for the MX2 scheme (including the new stadium) which went against the LDF. The Council shot itself in the foot by breaking it's own policy ! Mr Hocking is either mis-informed, or is trying to rewrite history, either way, he should know better, and after making at least two gaffs in this article, his credibility is as on a par with Coun Simpson-Laing's..... . about zero ! Scarlet Pimpernel

10:09am Sat 24 Nov 12

capt spaulding says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Sadly York is full of "I'm alright jack" types who don't care about anyone else.
Like Merritt and Tracey, yes your correct
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Sadly York is full of "I'm alright jack" types who don't care about anyone else.[/p][/quote]Like Merritt and Tracey, yes your correct capt spaulding

12:21pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Hoofarted says...

Why don't we kill the poor and save more money for those of us fortunate enough.
Why don't we kill the poor and save more money for those of us fortunate enough. Hoofarted

1:33pm Sat 24 Nov 12

xtc says...

Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:
‘The voices you don’t hear are those’ from another posters comments that have been removed earlier this morning because they do not fit in with the PR communication from the Jo Ro trust and that The Press think do not apply!


Only hearing one side of the argument as usual from The Press
Ah yes the voices telling the council their doing a great job!.....and jo- ro picking comments which don't make em look bad!obviously a different voice!
[quote][p][bold]Gary Gilmores Eyes[/bold] wrote: ‘The voices you don’t hear are those’ from another posters comments that have been removed earlier this morning because they do not fit in with the PR communication from the Jo Ro trust and that The Press think do not apply! Only hearing one side of the argument as usual from The Press[/p][/quote]Ah yes the voices telling the council their doing a great job!.....and jo- ro picking comments which don't make em look bad!obviously a different voice! xtc

2:47pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

The voices that City of York Council don't hear (refuse to hear ?) are the voices of the property professionals and redundant ex-housebuilders who have been telling them that their affordable housing policy targets are the problem which is holding back private housebuilding in York.

The more they ignore them, the less housebuilders will be building, and when they have killed all the local housebuilders off and the national firms have gone elsewhere to build, who will build the hoiuses York needs ?

I don't see James Alexander, Dave Merrett and Tracey Simpson-Laing taking up bricklaying, as demolition is more their bag...... demolishing York's housebuilding industry, brick by brick using their affordable housing sledgehammer policy to crush the private sector !!!!
The voices that City of York Council don't hear (refuse to hear ?) are the voices of the property professionals and redundant ex-housebuilders who have been telling them that their affordable housing policy targets are the problem which is holding back private housebuilding in York. The more they ignore them, the less housebuilders will be building, and when they have killed all the local housebuilders off and the national firms have gone elsewhere to build, who will build the hoiuses York needs ? I don't see James Alexander, Dave Merrett and Tracey Simpson-Laing taking up bricklaying, as demolition is more their bag...... demolishing York's housebuilding industry, brick by brick using their affordable housing sledgehammer policy to crush the private sector !!!! Scarlet Pimpernel

3:47pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Lineker's Lad says...

'Already people are moving to caravan parks - there is a real demand for 12 month lets in these places. US trailer park style situation is coming'
We've got the trash, so why not the trailers?
'Already people are moving to caravan parks - there is a real demand for 12 month lets in these places. US trailer park style situation is coming' We've got the trash, so why not the trailers? Lineker's Lad

5:43pm Sat 24 Nov 12

Digeorge says...

What is also happening now and in the near future. The problems is going to get worse


http://england.shelt
er.org.uk/get_advice
/housing_benefit_and
_local_housing_allow
ance/housing_benefit
_problems_delays_and
_appeals/facing_up_t
o_housing_benefit_ch
anges?utm_source=Out
brain&utm_medium=cpc
&utm_campaign=Housin
g%2Bbenefit%2Bchange
s
What is also happening now and in the near future. The problems is going to get worse http://england.shelt er.org.uk/get_advice /housing_benefit_and _local_housing_allow ance/housing_benefit _problems_delays_and _appeals/facing_up_t o_housing_benefit_ch anges?utm_source=Out brain&utm_medium=cpc &utm_campaign=Housin g%2Bbenefit%2Bchange s Digeorge

5:59pm Sat 24 Nov 12

oi oi savaloy says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Sadly York is full of "I'm alright jack" types who don't care about anyone else.
this state's the average wage in york is 22k ... am i right in saying thats about 4 k below national average?

is this anything to do with hugh bayley doing his best to get rid of engineering jobs in york and replacing them with low paid supermarket jobs and tourism jobs and the like?? just asking like..

also it seems the alright jack types are the ones milking it on ycc the ones who have had enormous pay increases over the last 15 years or so,

oh and the biggest alright jack in york is the one stuffing his pockets with tax payers money.... yep you guessed it huge expense account bayley!

also that james alexander seems to have is own agenda going on.. what you say buda??
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Sadly York is full of "I'm alright jack" types who don't care about anyone else.[/p][/quote]this state's the average wage in york is 22k ... am i right in saying thats about 4 k below national average? is this anything to do with hugh bayley doing his best to get rid of engineering jobs in york and replacing them with low paid supermarket jobs and tourism jobs and the like?? just asking like.. also it seems the alright jack types are the ones milking it on ycc the ones who have had enormous pay increases over the last 15 years or so, oh and the biggest alright jack in york is the one stuffing his pockets with tax payers money.... yep you guessed it huge expense account bayley! also that james alexander seems to have is own agenda going on.. what you say buda?? oi oi savaloy

9:27am Mon 26 Nov 12

meme says...

Possible solutions
we need more supply to balance with demand so
1. Council sells no more land to private develpers and uses its land to build affordables
2. Developers are charged a flat rate for any home built over sday 10 units. Money goes into a pot and council supplies affordables on their 'free' land
3.Council can buy factory buult homes which are good quality and rent them out to those who need them
4. Make affordables ONLY available to those with a proven York link
5. Allow 'employment sites' to be used for housebuilding
6. Speed up planning process and restrict the use of section 106 payments which affect the price of homes. The more'taxes' put on developers the less they will build
7. Take a close look at buildings 'protected/listed' and decide if they really are worthwhile ie terrys factory.
8. While looking at existing sites like Terrys/Nestle why have employment sites with them They are not needed today.... BUILD HOMES
9. Allocate some greenfield sites now as its got to happen
10 Go to people like Del Monte and find out why they are not applying for residential
11 Take a look at the 'green corridor' non allocation of land.....Why is this so important as these sites are some of the most accessible in York
12 Relook at places like Clifton Moor/Clifton Park/Monks Cross etc and allocate former employment sites for residential
13 Planning would be imprioved if it were less democratic. Every spurious objection is investigated and planners should be able to decide what is a fair objection and what is a nimby one
I'm sure there are other ideas but here are some for debate
Possible solutions we need more supply to balance with demand so 1. Council sells no more land to private develpers and uses its land to build affordables 2. Developers are charged a flat rate [TBA] for any home built over sday 10 units. Money goes into a pot and council supplies affordables on their 'free' land 3.Council can buy factory buult homes which are good quality and rent them out to those who need them 4. Make affordables ONLY available to those with a proven York link 5. Allow 'employment sites' to be used for housebuilding 6. Speed up planning process and restrict the use of section 106 payments which affect the price of homes. The more'taxes' put on developers the less they will build 7. Take a close look at buildings 'protected/listed' and decide if they really are worthwhile ie terrys factory. 8. While looking at existing sites like Terrys/Nestle why have employment sites with them They are not needed today.... BUILD HOMES 9. Allocate some greenfield sites now as its got to happen 10 Go to people like Del Monte and find out why they are not applying for residential 11 Take a look at the 'green corridor' non allocation of land.....Why is this so important as these sites are some of the most accessible in York 12 Relook at places like Clifton Moor/Clifton Park/Monks Cross etc and allocate former employment sites for residential 13 Planning would be imprioved if it were less democratic. Every spurious objection is investigated and planners should be able to decide what is a fair objection and what is a nimby one I'm sure there are other ideas but here are some for debate meme

2:11pm Mon 26 Nov 12

Kevin Turvey says...

‘yorkborn66 says...
12:06am Sat 24 Nov 12
‘This type of comment makes my blood boil. ‘

Best not read this then!
So why does the comment make your blood boil?
Is it the actual fact of market forces existence or the fact that someone has pointed out that market forces exist?
If it annoys you that market forces exist then you are going to be in big trouble as they do in everything you need, buy etc. that is called economics.
If it annoys you that someone has pointed it out then do not shoot the messenger!



‘If I had my way council and social housing in York should only be offered to a person or persons that was born in York or can demonstrate that their family has lived hear for generations. ‘

Is this not just a little bit of discrimination?
What has this got to do with the property prices in York?
Nothing as you are describing council and social housing – nothing to do with the property market….. private landlords are however!
How many generations?
What about outsiders marrying in to the gene pool thereby removing some of the York genes?
Are you suggesting a Eugenics programme/screening for all before housing?
Just as well you do not get your way then eh!
So to the flip side of your argument – does this also mean that everyone born or can prove x none diluted generations living here in York has to stay in York in social or council housing?
Thereby removing their rights to live where they want as per your own flawed argument?



‘Families are been torn apart due to unemployment and lack of true investment in jobs for York. A cashiers wage and likewise does not bring in the income for a ridiculously inflated property for a mortgage.’

Time to retrain/further education/less outgoings/plan for the future/not have children that you cannot support/budget accordingly/cut back on non-essentials like alcohol, smoking, Sky TV or indeed normal TV, internet, mobile phones etc.
It’s called global economics/market forces (yet again) and the every UK government for the last 30 years failing the next generation in underinvestment in education (root cause of the issue of people with poor jobs or prospects), whilst overspending on the effects (benefits, propping up uneconomic policies like housing benefit which has artificially kept high rents, it’s that supply and demand thing again!).



‘York’s property prices escalated when the electrification of the railway line to London happened. I know people living in a 2 bedroom flat in Walthamstow, moving to York, paying their mortgage off and buying the property in York outright with the equality remaining. ‘

Some element in that though that was back in the very late 1980’s/early 90’s so that boom is far from over, in fact a generation ago.
York is also a nice place to live with 2 universities and other good road communications around the northern area.
Good luck to people who have played the market and won, it’s called doing the best for yourself.
The faster you have paid off the mortgage the better!

Don’t knock people for taking better opportunities for themselves!

Besides I cannot blame anybody for wanting to move from Walthamstow!



‘People born in York and their families are been forced out; this is immoral, time for change.
York is turning into a yuppie cesspit .’

If a person had bought a property they cannot be forced to sell it as long as its either paid off or the mortgage is not in arrears!
So the place is a cesspit because people who want something out of life live here, want to live or move here to live or have a second property?
The ‘cesspit’ that you are describing to my mind are areas of Tang Hall, Bell Farm and Kingsway where life expectations are shocking low, crime higher, social problems exist, literacy and numeracy are poor and good job prospects are empty unless you make the EFFORT to escape areas such as these, through self effort, education (night classes if need be) and personal sacrifice for a better life now and in the future!

I suggest your blood is boiling because you are feeling that life is not in your control and events are dictating to you!
All self inflicted! We are all born equal, irrespective of background it just depends on how driven you are!
Also I do not expect things given to me on a plate!


Do not knock people who work hard and have made personal sacrifices to make their life better for themselves and their own.

Signed somebody who has done just that!
‘yorkborn66 says... 12:06am Sat 24 Nov 12 ‘This type of comment makes my blood boil. ‘ Best not read this then! So why does the comment make your blood boil? Is it the actual fact of market forces existence or the fact that someone has pointed out that market forces exist? If it annoys you that market forces exist then you are going to be in big trouble as they do in everything you need, buy etc. that is called economics. If it annoys you that someone has pointed it out then do not shoot the messenger! ‘If I had my way council and social housing in York should only be offered to a person or persons that was born in York or can demonstrate that their family has lived hear for generations. ‘ Is this not just a little bit of discrimination? What has this got to do with the property prices in York? Nothing as you are describing council and social housing – nothing to do with the property market….. private landlords are however! How many generations? What about outsiders marrying in to the gene pool thereby removing some of the York genes? Are you suggesting a Eugenics programme/screening for all before housing? Just as well you do not get your way then eh! So to the flip side of your argument – does this also mean that everyone born or can prove x none diluted generations living here in York has to stay in York in social or council housing? Thereby removing their rights to live where they want as per your own flawed argument? ‘Families are been torn apart due to unemployment and lack of true investment in jobs for York. A cashiers wage and likewise does not bring in the income for a ridiculously inflated property for a mortgage.’ Time to retrain/further education/less outgoings/plan for the future/not have children that you cannot support/budget accordingly/cut back on non-essentials like alcohol, smoking, Sky TV or indeed normal TV, internet, mobile phones etc. It’s called global economics/market forces (yet again) and the every UK government for the last 30 years failing the next generation in underinvestment in education (root cause of the issue of people with poor jobs or prospects), whilst overspending on the effects (benefits, propping up uneconomic policies like housing benefit which has artificially kept high rents, it’s that supply and demand thing again!). ‘York’s property prices escalated when the electrification of the railway line to London happened. I know people living in a 2 bedroom flat in Walthamstow, moving to York, paying their mortgage off and buying the property in York outright with the equality remaining. ‘ Some element in that though that was back in the very late 1980’s/early 90’s so that boom is far from over, in fact a generation ago. York is also a nice place to live with 2 universities and other good road communications around the northern area. Good luck to people who have played the market and won, it’s called doing the best for yourself. The faster you have paid off the mortgage the better! Don’t knock people for taking better opportunities for themselves! Besides I cannot blame anybody for wanting to move from Walthamstow! ‘People born in York and their families are been forced out; this is immoral, time for change. York is turning into a yuppie cesspit .’ If a person had bought a property they cannot be forced to sell it as long as its either paid off or the mortgage is not in arrears! So the place is a cesspit because people who want something out of life live here, want to live or move here to live or have a second property? The ‘cesspit’ that you are describing to my mind are areas of Tang Hall, Bell Farm and Kingsway where life expectations are shocking low, crime higher, social problems exist, literacy and numeracy are poor and good job prospects are empty unless you make the EFFORT to escape areas such as these, through self effort, education (night classes if need be) and personal sacrifice for a better life now and in the future! I suggest your blood is boiling because you are feeling that life is not in your control and events are dictating to you! All self inflicted! We are all born equal, irrespective of background it just depends on how driven you are! Also I do not expect things given to me on a plate! Do not knock people who work hard and have made personal sacrifices to make their life better for themselves and their own. Signed somebody who has done just that! Kevin Turvey

10:04pm Mon 26 Nov 12

another_paul_b says...

I can't believe that so much can be said on this issue without anyone mentioning the effect on the housing market of of buy-to-let.

Also, some people mention market forces as if is all that is determining the price of houses. But there are plenty of other factors, e.g. the fact that interest rates are being kept artificially low because the only way that the Bank Of England and the government can see of staving off the effects of the ongoing financial crisis is to adopt policies which are trying to keep the price of houses from falling!

The right-wing daily tabloids regularly have front-page headlines whenever some index or other suggests that prices have risen, of the "we are all saved" type - |I can think of no other item where a price rise would be greeted with joy.

Something is seriously wrong with our attitude to housing in this country. A house is a place to live, and too many people in this country are without one due to the greed of those who have been turning housing more and more into a speculative item. This is not a case of "market forces", it is down to political choice, e.g. over ready availability of buy-to-let mortgages, low interest rates, etc. The greed of some makes it hard for the rest.

Oh.and if there is much less money about, how come rents are not coming down? How is the free market coping with that one then? If housing benefit has resulted in landlords putting rent up, the answer is not to change the benefit in ways which will cause families hardship - the answer is to lower the rents that are charged!
I can't believe that so much can be said on this issue without anyone mentioning the effect on the housing market of of buy-to-let. Also, some people mention market forces as if is all that is determining the price of houses. But there are plenty of other factors, e.g. the fact that interest rates are being kept artificially low because the only way that the Bank Of England and the government can see of staving off the effects of the ongoing financial crisis is to adopt policies which are trying to keep the price of houses from falling! The right-wing daily tabloids regularly have front-page headlines whenever some index or other suggests that prices have risen, of the "we are all saved" type - |I can think of no other item where a price rise would be greeted with joy. Something is seriously wrong with our attitude to housing in this country. A house is a place to live, and too many people in this country are without one due to the greed of those who have been turning housing more and more into a speculative item. This is not a case of "market forces", it is down to political choice, e.g. over ready availability of buy-to-let mortgages, low interest rates, etc. The greed of some makes it hard for the rest. Oh.and if there is much less money about, how come rents are not coming down? How is the free market coping with that one then? If housing benefit has resulted in landlords putting rent up, the answer is not to change the benefit in ways which will cause families hardship - the answer is to lower the rents that are charged! another_paul_b

10:05am Tue 27 Nov 12

Hoofarted says...

The laughter you do hear are those with multiple properties whilst gaining a £40000 a year tax rebate from osborne
The laughter you do hear are those with multiple properties whilst gaining a £40000 a year tax rebate from osborne Hoofarted

11:15am Tue 27 Nov 12

meme says...

This issue certainly polarised the divisions between left and right and haves and have nots!
Thiose who believe you are entitled to everything free and those who believe you work for what you get
Those who believe in state intervention and those who dont
Those who believe house/land ownership is theft and those who think its a way to better yourself
There will never be a solution as the views are just too polarised with no middle ground that I can see
This issue certainly polarised the divisions between left and right and haves and have nots! Thiose who believe you are entitled to everything free and those who believe you work for what you get Those who believe in state intervention and those who dont Those who believe house/land ownership is theft and those who think its a way to better yourself There will never be a solution as the views are just too polarised with no middle ground that I can see meme

12:52pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Hoofarted says...

Those who believe we all coexist in the world and use each other to prosper via each others needs. Without even the poorest family purchasing the cheapest items, the wealthiest wouldn't prosper on their market involvement.

Coexist yet punish them not materialistic enough to grab enough.
Those who believe we all coexist in the world and use each other to prosper via each others needs. Without even the poorest family purchasing the cheapest items, the wealthiest wouldn't prosper on their market involvement. Coexist yet punish them not materialistic enough to grab enough. Hoofarted

1:21pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Stafford_Staff says...

Housing is the biggest problem facing York. Families in work are struggling to pay rent on top living expenses, nevermind saving up for a deposit. it's quite clear york needs 10,000's of new homes. The council needs to kick in to gear a mass housing building program. 1000's of new homes should have the effect of reducing house prices/rents across the city, thus those renting will be able to afford their rents, save a deposit for a house they can afford. I think as a country we need to change our attitude to housing, housing should be cheap. Governments should be worry when house prices rise. Cheaper housing, puts money in people's pockets.
Housing is the biggest problem facing York. Families in work are struggling to pay rent on top living expenses, nevermind saving up for a deposit. it's quite clear york needs 10,000's of new homes. The council needs to kick in to gear a mass housing building program. 1000's of new homes should have the effect of reducing house prices/rents across the city, thus those renting will be able to afford their rents, save a deposit for a house they can afford. I think as a country we need to change our attitude to housing, housing should be cheap. Governments should be worry when house prices rise. Cheaper housing, puts money in people's pockets. Stafford_Staff

10:55pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

meme wrote:
This issue certainly polarised the divisions between left and right and haves and have nots!
Thiose who believe you are entitled to everything free and those who believe you work for what you get
Those who believe in state intervention and those who dont
Those who believe house/land ownership is theft and those who think its a way to better yourself
There will never be a solution as the views are just too polarised with no middle ground that I can see
You are right that there will never be consensus, on the way to solve the problem, but, there will be solutions - THERE HAS TO BE !

It matters not, that the eventual solutions will be politically unpopular with some, what does matter is that politicians allow solutions that do not discriminate. The problem in York has been exacerbated because the Council abused the affordable housing rules by setting an inflated, illegitimate target of 50%, and kept it in place for 5 years and 9 months. This caused irreparable damage to York's housebuilding industry.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: This issue certainly polarised the divisions between left and right and haves and have nots! Thiose who believe you are entitled to everything free and those who believe you work for what you get Those who believe in state intervention and those who dont Those who believe house/land ownership is theft and those who think its a way to better yourself There will never be a solution as the views are just too polarised with no middle ground that I can see[/p][/quote]You are right that there will never be consensus, on the way to solve the problem, but, there will be solutions - THERE HAS TO BE ! It matters not, that the eventual solutions will be politically unpopular with some, what does matter is that politicians allow solutions that do not discriminate. The problem in York has been exacerbated because the Council abused the affordable housing rules by setting an inflated, illegitimate target of 50%, and kept it in place for 5 years and 9 months. This caused irreparable damage to York's housebuilding industry. Scarlet Pimpernel

1:40pm Wed 28 Nov 12

Gary Gilmores Eyes says...

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-20517
171

Case for the prosecution rests
http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/magazine-20517 171 Case for the prosecution rests Gary Gilmores Eyes

3:15pm Wed 28 Nov 12

mrcharly says...

"that mythical land of “brown fields”."

'Mythical'? York has extensive brownfield sites. The council decided they would be worth a fortune for commercial development rather than housing.

BTW, anyone checked the state of the water level at the Germany Beck site over the last few days?

That's a good site to build on. Floods, next to congested roads.

Might be better to pick something adjacent to train station (with fast service to London/Leeds/Manches
ter), shops & markets. Could there possibly be vacant land that fits this description?
"that mythical land of “brown fields”." 'Mythical'? York has extensive brownfield sites. The council decided they would be worth a fortune for commercial development rather than housing. BTW, anyone checked the state of the water level at the Germany Beck site over the last few days? That's a good site to build on. Floods, next to congested roads. Might be better to pick something adjacent to train station (with fast service to London/Leeds/Manches ter), shops & markets. Could there possibly be vacant land that fits this description? mrcharly

5:00pm Wed 28 Nov 12

meme says...

Just to dispel a myth...Residential land is worth far more than commercial land with the exception of retail but Council offloaded lots of sites just before the affordable requirement came in and cleverly maximised their values; good in monetary terms.... Bad now we need land for affordables
To build the sort of homes needed on brownfield sites alone the densities have to increase and that involves apartments
York central is not affordale even in the boom due to costs of access contamination and planning constraints on affordable/POS/roads
/transport interchange etc.
Some same points apply to Germany beck/Terrys/Nestle.. all need huge sums to open them up so there is no chance of 'cheap' houses. That's a fact of life and is the reason non have started yet.
Regrettably york does not have acres of accessible brownfield sites. In fact we have very little but what we have the council will not allow to be changed from emplyment uses to residential as it looses the potential for future employment!! Seems mad to me but that's the rules....
So the only practical anser as the government minister announced today is to build on some greenfield land .....Highly contentious but unavoidable and its going to happen if you all want homes in future. if it does not houses to buy become the preserve of the wealthy in York and those who cannot afford York go and live elsewhere. Harsh but true
To sort this out supply has to increase and its not going to come from brownfield land despite what we may want to believe or think is desirable
Just to dispel a myth...Residential land is worth far more than commercial land with the exception of retail [MCross? office land £200/350K per acre; Residential £500/1 million per acre] but Council offloaded lots of sites just before the affordable requirement came in and cleverly maximised their values; good in monetary terms.... Bad now we need land for affordables To build the sort of homes needed on brownfield sites alone the densities have to increase and that involves apartments York central is not affordale even in the boom due to costs of access [Millions of pounds to get into site] contamination and planning constraints on affordable/POS/roads /transport interchange etc. Some same points apply to Germany beck/Terrys/Nestle.. all need huge sums to open them up so there is no chance of 'cheap' houses. That's a fact of life and is the reason non have started yet. Regrettably york does not have acres of accessible brownfield sites. In fact we have very little but what we have the council will not allow to be changed from emplyment uses to residential as it looses the potential for future employment!! Seems mad to me but that's the rules.... So the only practical anser as the government minister announced today is to build on some greenfield land .....Highly contentious but unavoidable and its going to happen if you all want homes in future. if it does not houses to buy become the preserve of the wealthy in York and those who cannot afford York go and live elsewhere. Harsh but true To sort this out supply has to increase and its not going to come from brownfield land despite what we may want to believe or think is desirable meme

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree