Rent control and buy to let.

[Trotskylvania]

Yeah, countryside is boring.

No, just people need to have houses. The populations growing, house prices are going up, rents are going up a solution would be to build more decent affordable housing with as much of it on brown field sights as possible. Regardless the UK has lots and lots of countryside going spare.

Here's the thing. Housing has to be a reasonable distance from centers of commerce. Building in the country side will not alleviate demand for housing in the centers of commerce. Because people still need to leave near where they work, and long commutes are a massive, hidden cost not only on the individual, but on the rest of society.

So we can either have unregulated rents driving millions to pauperization. Rent-control provides a band-aid that will at least ensure in the short term that people's housing cost does not skyrocket. But the only real solution is a return to the social provision of housing, a system that was unwisely dismantled by the Thatcher regime.

[WestRedMaple]

Let's try and spell this out for you.

I said that private lets, in an illness-fuelled fit of rage, were the "personification of cuntishness". Generally the private sector, but specifically private lets.
You then asked "how many lets do you own".

By extension of my own logic, you are therefore calling me a cunt by insinuating I am the very thing I am branding "the personification of cuntishness" (I am not a private letter). It should also have been abundantly clear, from the language alone, that I am not a private letter.

From this, the only possible reason you would have asked this is for me to say "well, I don't own any private lets". To which you would have surely responded "well, your opinion is worthless". Which wouldn't have been correct, since me not owning a let doesn't invalidate my viewpoint on private lets. Nor does not being a chef invalidate your opinions on the quality of food, nor does not being a licensed driver invalidate your opinions of others' road handling skills.

So there we have it, your 'logic' is not and you're not very good at assumptions.

At least you finally cleared that up

[Imperializt Russia]

I was explaining what someone else was saying, not what I said.

Why did you ask me how many lets I owned?

[The Emperor Fenix]

No, just people need to have houses. The populations growing, house prices are going up, rents are going up a solution would be to build more decent affordable housing with as much of it on brown field sights as possible. Regardless the UK has lots and lots of countryside going spare.

Here's the thing. Housing has to be a reasonable distance from centers of commerce. Building in the country side will not alleviate demand for housing in the centers of commerce. Because people still need to leave near where they work, and long commutes are a massive, hidden cost not only on the individual, but on the rest of society.

So we can either have unregulated rents driving millions to pauperization. Rent-control provides a band-aid that will at least ensure in the short term that people's housing cost does not skyrocket. But the only real solution is a return to the social provision of housing, a system that was unwisely dismantled by the Thatcher regime.

In most cases I always counsel 'go for the small victory you're sure you can win and roll with your success up to the big goal that's just a dream now' but rent control and affordable housing seem like red herrings.

They act to alleviate some of the damage being done by the badly distorted housing market sure, but they're really not very good at it and I don't think they get us any nearer to the goal of restoring social housing and general housing market health. If we pushed and get rent control through I think it would just distract from the underlying issue and sap the will to tackle it later on, as well as providing an argument for the other side that something is already being done so further action isn't necessary.

Otherwise though,

But the only real solution is a return to the social provision of housing, a system that was unwisely dismantled by the Thatcher regime.

Fucking preach

[Sdaeriji]

Let's try and spell this out for you.

I said that private lets, in an illness-fuelled fit of rage, were the "personification of cuntishness". Generally the private sector, but specifically private lets.
You then asked "how many lets do you own".

By extension of my own logic, you are therefore calling me a cunt by insinuating I am the very thing I am branding "the personification of cuntishness" (I am not a private letter). It should also have been abundantly clear, from the language alone, that I am not a private letter.

From this, the only possible reason you would have asked this is for me to say "well, I don't own any private lets". To which you would have surely responded "well, your opinion is worthless". Which wouldn't have been correct, since me not owning a let doesn't invalidate my viewpoint on private lets. Nor does not being a chef invalidate your opinions on the quality of food, nor does not being a licensed driver invalidate your opinions of others' road handling skills.

So there we have it, your 'logic' is not and you're not very good at assumptions.

At least you finally cleared that up

God, you're just the worst debater ever, aren't you?

What was the point of asking him how much he charges in rent?

[WestRedMaple]

I was explaining what someone else was saying, not what I said.

Why did you ask me how many lets I owned?

I was just wondering, given how much you complain about what others charge, if you were consistent by charging less.

Turns out, you don't offer housing for any price.

Why should you have any control over my private transactions? Why can I not decide on my own how much a place is worth?

[WestRedMaple]

So there we have it, your 'logic' is not and you're not very good at assumptions.

At least you finally cleared that up

God, you're just the worst debater ever, aren't you?

What was the point of asking him how much he charges in rent?

Nope, you've just proven that I can still top you. What about discussing the topic without needless insults is beyond your desire or ability?

[The Nihilistic view]

Well what do you expect OP? The Idea of controlling rent is a classic Labour with no thought for the consequences. Same with the Energy Price freeze and the mansion tax that could cost as much to administer as it takes in. A 1% in income tax would raise more and cost no extra to administer and raise tax from the richest still.

Building more homes is the way forward and personally I would like to see local authorities build hundreds of thousands of houses a year over the next 10-15 years and keep open the right to buy on them. This would feed the market and keep house prices down whilst also giving social housing back it's respectability. Thatchers idea was a good one, where it went wrong was not building more houses to replace the ones sold. Though to be honest I don't think she can be blamed for not predicting an immigrant explosion from net immigration of a few tens of thousands in the early 80s to hundreds of thousands in the 00s onward. One either has to restrict immigration or build more houses. Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron have done neither. Boris has given it a good go trying to keep up with demand in London but it's still well behind what's needed. Blair is probably most to blame from those that came after Thatcher, he did absolutely nothing. Instead of building houses he frittered our money away on massively increasing the state's bureaucrats and huge salaries and pay offs to the management level.

[The Emperor Fenix]

Thatchers idea was a good one, where it went wrong was not building more houses to replace the ones sold.

That was, you know, the whole point though. Allow tenants to buy their council houses and prevent the construction of new stock, thus removing the state from the business of social housing. You cannot endorse Thatchers position on social housing but declaim the intended results of her policy.

[The Nihilistic view]

Thatchers idea was a good one, where it went wrong was not building more houses to replace the ones sold.

That was, you know, the whole point though. Allow tenants to buy their council houses and prevent the construction of new stock, thus removing the state from the business of social housing. You cannot endorse Thatchers position on social housing but declaim the intended results of her policy.

Allowing people to buy their homes is a good idea.

[The Emperor Fenix]

That was, you know, the whole point though. Allow tenants to buy their council houses and prevent the construction of new stock, thus removing the state from the business of social housing. You cannot endorse Thatchers position on social housing but declaim the intended results of her policy.

Allowing people to buy their homes is a good idea.

In the abstract, as a concept, sure. In context, what motivated the legislation, nope. As a method of enfranchising residents to encourage them to maintain civil order on their estates it had a nice enough ring to it [I am not here to defend the appalling 'estates' model of high density social housing, for the designers it may have been a dream of building vertical villages and self contained communities, but the inevitable upshot was the isolation of the residents from the wider community and this isolating away of the poor was definitely an alluring prospect for many who would otherwise not have supported their construction] but as part of a scheme to remove the state from delivering social housing both by selling off stock and making managing existing estates impossibly burdensome, it's a terrible idea.

[EDIT] I mean, the upshot of the Thatcherite system is, people were given the right to buy the substandard housing they were currently in [whilst at the same time unwilling local authorities are being shook down to maintain same, which they natural do a deliberately bad job at] they do this thing, time goes by, conditions of neighbouring units in substandard housing remains substandard or declines, our home owning friends promptly sell up for better pastures. And now a bunch of tories who cooked up the whole scheme plus a motley array of other unseemly characters have ended up playing slum landlord. I don't see any reasonable reform that could have been put in place (or could be put in place during this hypothetical round two of social housing construction) that would prevent the influx of cheap low quality housing coming onto the market from being bought up by petty landlords.

Actually yes I do, you could say 'buy an ex social house and you've got to live in it, no tenants for thirty years'. But then, does the government want to be in the business of policing that kind of thing. If social housing policy actually works and house prices stabilize somewhere near the realm of sanity people who wish would actually be able to get the money together to buy a house on the private market. Buying your council flat was just the government building affordable housing by any other name, whilst at the same time deliberately throwing a wrench into the neighbouring social housing function. The two should be separate.

Is it just me or did that get more incoherent the longer I went on.

[Imperializt Russia]

I was explaining what someone else was saying, not what I said.

Why did you ask me how many lets I owned?

I was just wondering, given how much you complain about what others charge, if you were consistent by charging less.

Turns out, you don't offer housing for any price.

Why should you have any control over my private transactions? Why can I not decide on my own how much a place is worth?

"You don't, therefore your opinion is worthless".

Now, you steadfastly denied that you would not say this, when I divulged that I own no private lets.
But you have.

[WestRedMaple]

I was just wondering, given how much you complain about what others charge, if you were consistent by charging less.

Turns out, you don't offer housing for any price.

Why should you have any control over my private transactions? Why can I not decide on my own how much a place is worth?

"You don't, therefore your opinion is worthless".

Now, you steadfastly denied that you would not say this, when I divulged that I own no private lets.
But you have.

What do you know, you lied again. That is not, in fact, anything that I have ever claimed.

That is a straw man you created rather than face having to engage in honest discussion.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Turns out, you don't offer housing for any price.

Why should you have any control over my private transactions?"

No, I'm not lying. I'm summarising your points.
You are suggesting that my opinion has no value on the matter because I am not personally involved in the system.

[WestRedMaple]

No, I'm not lying. I'm summarising your points.
You are suggesting that my opinion has no value on the matter because I am not personally involved in the system.

You did, in fact, lie. At no point did I say that your opinion has no value based on you not personally being involved in the system.

You proceed, in this very short post, to lie several more times.


Why don't you come on back when you're ready for an honest discussion for a change?

[Greed and Death]

Most refurbish the apartments to be luxury apartments which are typically exempt from rent control.

Manhattan has a large number of empty luxury apartments that the landlord would rather have as empty than to have affordable housing that they can actually rent because of the risk of rent control.

I think those are called coops, those apts are privately owned. In the city apts that are not rent controlled or stabilized do not become rent controlled by the virtue of having a low rent.

My understanding is the Rent Act of 2011 deregulates apartments with a rent over 2,500.

[Ethel mermania]

I think those are called coops, those apts are privately owned. In the city apts that are not rent controlled or stabilized do not become rent controlled by the virtue of having a low rent.

My understanding is the Rent Act of 2011 deregulates apartments with a rent over 2,500.

Only Rent stabilized apts. The turning old buildings and SRO's into luxury condos was the j-51 tax abatement.

[Ethel mermania]

I think those are called coops, those apts are privately owned. In the city apts that are not rent controlled or stabilized do not become rent controlled by the virtue of having a low rent.

My understanding is the Rent Act of 2011 deregulates apartments with a rent over 2,500.

There was an article in today's times, relevant to the conversation
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/re ... ?referrer=