5 ms·

So, these people — who supposedly own a home there — voted to keep any current homeowners (owning homes anywhere in the country) out of buying homes in their di

by maratc 4y ago

So, these people — who supposedly own a home there — voted to keep any current homeowners (owning homes anywhere in the country) out of buying homes in their district, cutting a huge chunk of the home buyers from buying a home there. By drastically limiting the demand, they just sent their home prices down, making themselves potentially poorer (or much poorer) as a result. In a nutshell, they've just voted to rob themselves of money. Are there some ideals at work here, or is it a case of people not fully grasping the future consequences of their current actions?

bitcurious 4y ago
>Is there some ideals at work here, or is it a case of people not fully grasping the future consequences of their current actions? This is a false framing. There are real future consequences to having a community of vacationers - seasonal only restaurants, emptier schools and playgrounds, lack of trust, businesses that can't sustain themselves because the population only occasionally drops by, split voting with opposite interests re: long-term investment. Your home is where you live, not just an investment vehicle.
- maratc 4y ago
  > Your home is where you live, not just an investment vehicle. It's not an either-or proposition, it can be both at the same time. The issues you mention are real, but would the town be better off with a seasonal restaurant or with no restaurant at all? I'm no expert in British law, but what would happen if I want to buy a house there and get rejected because I already own one, and then I take them to the court?
llimos 4y ago
For people who only own the house they live in - they are not likely to sell it, so its value going down is of less concern. Yes, perhaps they can borrow a bit less against it but again, not such a major concern. They are presumably thinking of their children (who these days can only buy a house with the help of the Bank of Mum and Dad), and the wider community. And themselves too, should they need to upsize. It's not as simple as value up = good, value down = bad.
- maratc 4y ago
  > they are not likely to sell it They might like to sell it (and buy another one) if they want a bigger house (e.g. when they have more kids), or a smaller house (e.g. when the kids have left the nest). Selling their house and buying another one in a more open market (not having such limits on buyers) would mean finding the money to pay for a difference between the lower prices on the limited market and higher prices on unlimited markets.
SilverBirch 4y ago
That's not what happened here at all. The locals (people who live but don't necessarily own a home there) voted to prevent people from purchasing houses to use as second homes. Yes, that potentially drives down the prices because rich londoners can't dump half a million down on a holiday home. But this is partly what they want! It lowers prices allowing local people a chance to get a house of their own(they can't compete with London wages). What happens at the moment, is that local people get priced out of the housing market and end up having to move either to substandard accomodation or move in-land so they can afford rent and then commute back. But more importantly, it saves the local economy. The problem is that if your town is full of holiday rentals with people who only turn up for 2 weeks in the summer it's impossible to run a local business, because there are no customers for the other 50 weeks of the year. So essentially you end up with ghost towns where the economy is dead for 50 weeks of the year, locals can't afford to live there anymore.
- maratc 4y ago
  If this poll is for the people who "live but don't necessarily own a home there" it would be interesting to see the result of the poll of people who own a home but don't necessarily live there. > it's impossible to run a local business Point taken, but is there anything in the British law that guarantees one a right to run a profitable local business? > you end up with ghost towns I agree with your assessment that it's what this (free) housing market is creating. I think it's by design though? If your argument is that this is somehow a market failure necessitating government intervention, you need to prove why the alternative situation is better for everyone, not just the locals.
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    I don't think you do need to prove this is better for everyone instead of just locals, the local government's primary responsibility is to the electorate - which in the UK is the people who live in the local area. It's obviously quite limited what local councils can actually do though - they can determine council tax, and they can determine what types of business operate where - which is what this would be covered by. There are obviously limits to how far the responsibility to local residents extends - but I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be the highest priority. Ultimately, if the council did something that was really damaging nationally there are plenty of levers that national government can pull to overcome that (they provided significant funding to councils and ultimately national legislation takes precedence). A case in point - recently one MP came out and said he didn't have confidence in Boris Johnson. Hilariously in retaliation the government announced they were green lighting a fracking site in his constituency. (this isn't very relevant, but it is very funny and demonstrates the limits local councils have)
philliphaydon 4y ago
Lol this sounds like a bunch of words from someone so has more than one house. House prices going down is a GOOD thing for the vast majority of the population. What you also forget is that as a coastal property people buy those houses as holiday homes. So by not living there for 48 weeks off the year, local businesses suffer. By ensuring those homes are lived in means local businesses will flourish.
- maratc 4y ago
  > someone so has more than one house I'm not going to answer the ad-hominem attack, you know nothing of my situation, and it's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. But I think it's stupid to own a property which brings no revenue and stands empty 95% of the year, but still requires taxes and upkeep. > House prices going down is a GOOD thing for the vast majority of the population. On the opposite. House prices going down is a good thing for the unhoused population, and it's a bad thing for the homeowners. In the most markets, more people own houses than not. So the majority of the population usually enjoys house prices rising (at the expense of the minority, of course). Additionally, the more a house is "worth" on paper, the more people are willing to invest in it (renovations, keep-up), which is usually a good thing for the economy. > What you also forget is that as a coastal property people buy those houses as holiday homes. I don't forget that, I completely understand the situation. What I don't know is the situation in a neighbouring town which is not coastal and where no rich londoners are buying.
  - philliphaydon 4y ago
    > at the expense of the minority, of course That minority is slowly becoming a majority. Home ownership in NZ is the lowest ever. It’s down to like 60-65%. The market is becoming completely unaffordable. Raising prices is good for high income earners and people who have homes to leverage from. > Additionally, the more a house is "worth" on paper, the more people are willing to invest in it (renovations, keep-up), which is usually a good thing for the economy. People who can barely afford a house cannot renovated it. When a mortgage payment is 2-3 times the cost of renting you don’t have disposable income to renovate. > House prices going down is a good thing for the unhoused population, and it's a bad thing for the homeowners. The ONLY time prices falling is bad for a home owner is when the value of the house is less than what they paid.
cryptonector 4y ago
This applies to new construction, demand for which presumably will now go down, thus reducing new supply, thus presumably rendering existing homes more valuable.
moneywoes 4y ago
I’m guessing most of the people who voted don’t own

by maratc 4y ago

bitcurious 4y ago

>Is there some ideals at work here, or is it a case of people not fully grasping the future consequences of their current actions? This is a false framing. There are real future consequences to having a community of vacationers - seasonal only restaurants, emptier schools and playgrounds, lack of trust, businesses that can't sustain themselves because the population only occasionally drops by, split voting with opposite interests re: long-term investment. Your home is where you live, not just an investment vehicle.

maratc 4y ago
> Your home is where you live, not just an investment vehicle. It's not an either-or proposition, it can be both at the same time. The issues you mention are real, but would the town be better off with a seasonal restaurant or with no restaurant at all? I'm no expert in British law, but what would happen if I want to buy a house there and get rejected because I already own one, and then I take them to the court?

llimos 4y ago

For people who only own the house they live in - they are not likely to sell it, so its value going down is of less concern. Yes, perhaps they can borrow a bit less against it but again, not such a major concern. They are presumably thinking of their children (who these days can only buy a house with the help of the Bank of Mum and Dad), and the wider community. And themselves too, should they need to upsize. It's not as simple as value up = good, value down = bad.

maratc 4y ago
> they are not likely to sell it They might like to sell it (and buy another one) if they want a bigger house (e.g. when they have more kids), or a smaller house (e.g. when the kids have left the nest). Selling their house and buying another one in a more open market (not having such limits on buyers) would mean finding the money to pay for a difference between the lower prices on the limited market and higher prices on unlimited markets.

SilverBirch 4y ago

That's not what happened here at all. The locals (people who live but don't necessarily own a home there) voted to prevent people from purchasing houses to use as second homes. Yes, that potentially drives down the prices because rich londoners can't dump half a million down on a holiday home. But this is partly what they want! It lowers prices allowing local people a chance to get a house of their own(they can't compete with London wages). What happens at the moment, is that local people get priced out of the housing market and end up having to move either to substandard accomodation or move in-land so they can afford rent and then commute back. But more importantly, it saves the local economy. The problem is that if your town is full of holiday rentals with people who only turn up for 2 weeks in the summer it's impossible to run a local business, because there are no customers for the other 50 weeks of the year. So essentially you end up with ghost towns where the economy is dead for 50 weeks of the year, locals can't afford to live there anymore.

maratc 4y ago
If this poll is for the people who "live but don't necessarily own a home there" it would be interesting to see the result of the poll of people who own a home but don't necessarily live there. > it's impossible to run a local business Point taken, but is there anything in the British law that guarantees one a right to run a profitable local business? > you end up with ghost towns I agree with your assessment that it's what this (free) housing market is creating. I think it's by design though? If your argument is that this is somehow a market failure necessitating government intervention, you need to prove why the alternative situation is better for everyone, not just the locals.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  I don't think you do need to prove this is better for everyone instead of just locals, the local government's primary responsibility is to the electorate - which in the UK is the people who live in the local area. It's obviously quite limited what local councils can actually do though - they can determine council tax, and they can determine what types of business operate where - which is what this would be covered by. There are obviously limits to how far the responsibility to local residents extends - but I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be the highest priority. Ultimately, if the council did something that was really damaging nationally there are plenty of levers that national government can pull to overcome that (they provided significant funding to councils and ultimately national legislation takes precedence). A case in point - recently one MP came out and said he didn't have confidence in Boris Johnson. Hilariously in retaliation the government announced they were green lighting a fracking site in his constituency. (this isn't very relevant, but it is very funny and demonstrates the limits local councils have)

philliphaydon 4y ago

Lol this sounds like a bunch of words from someone so has more than one house. House prices going down is a GOOD thing for the vast majority of the population. What you also forget is that as a coastal property people buy those houses as holiday homes. So by not living there for 48 weeks off the year, local businesses suffer. By ensuring those homes are lived in means local businesses will flourish.

maratc 4y ago
> someone so has more than one house I'm not going to answer the ad-hominem attack, you know nothing of my situation, and it's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. But I think it's stupid to own a property which brings no revenue and stands empty 95% of the year, but still requires taxes and upkeep. > House prices going down is a GOOD thing for the vast majority of the population. On the opposite. House prices going down is a good thing for the unhoused population, and it's a bad thing for the homeowners. In the most markets, more people own houses than not. So the majority of the population usually enjoys house prices rising (at the expense of the minority, of course). Additionally, the more a house is "worth" on paper, the more people are willing to invest in it (renovations, keep-up), which is usually a good thing for the economy. > What you also forget is that as a coastal property people buy those houses as holiday homes. I don't forget that, I completely understand the situation. What I don't know is the situation in a neighbouring town which is not coastal and where no rich londoners are buying.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  > at the expense of the minority, of course That minority is slowly becoming a majority. Home ownership in NZ is the lowest ever. It’s down to like 60-65%. The market is becoming completely unaffordable. Raising prices is good for high income earners and people who have homes to leverage from. > Additionally, the more a house is "worth" on paper, the more people are willing to invest in it (renovations, keep-up), which is usually a good thing for the economy. People who can barely afford a house cannot renovated it. When a mortgage payment is 2-3 times the cost of renting you don’t have disposable income to renovate. > House prices going down is a good thing for the unhoused population, and it's a bad thing for the homeowners. The ONLY time prices falling is bad for a home owner is when the value of the house is less than what they paid.

cryptonector 4y ago

This applies to new construction, demand for which presumably will now go down, thus reducing new supply, thus presumably rendering existing homes more valuable.

moneywoes 4y ago

I’m guessing most of the people who voted don’t own