There's no good reason why the system should not allow for the dream of owning one's plot. This is basically a riposte to those pushing this NIMBY and Home-Ownerist rubbish, as if it's a bad thing, this dream.
What IS bad is the rampant greed in people's hearts - they see a killing and think no one loses in these things.
I'm not against vertical building and living - I'm in one of those myself and it's fine, if privacy is cleverly built in. but it does not suit everyone and if you're prepared to go out into the sticks and commute, then so be it. I gave up a home I owned out in the sticks for a flat I owned nearly inner city and it was nice, looked over a park etc.
Ian brings this - don't be fooled by the title:
The issue is, of course, unit cost of dwelling, meaning one must borrow. My father built our house and the cost was about three years' gross salary. Bought new, it would have been five years gross salary. And that should be the cap IMHO. That's a reasonable limit.
Then we come to necessary and quite OTT legislation and regulation which lines the councils' pockets and lets them boss people around. When I sold my last house, it was fine for both parties but then in came all the regulations and the way that hiked up the cost to me, the price to the other man.
The alternative to home ownership is too terrible to contemplate.
"And that should be the cap IMHO. That's a reasonable limit." There should be no cap. There is no reasonable limit.
ReplyDeletePrice controls are the economics of fools and murderers.
Wot, even if determined by market forces?
Delete