3 ms·

> current home owners - their ageing voting base - are NIMBYs who don't want the wrong sort of people living near them and any reduction in demand that would re

> current home owners - their ageing voting base - are NIMBYs who don't want the wrong sort of people living near them and any reduction in demand that would reduce their value of their homes New housing is directly against the interests of existing homeowners. Any plan that relies on people seriously disadvantaging themselves in order to benefit other people they don’t know is doomed to failure.

danjac 3y ago
Only if those people who are going to be disadvantaged have political power. If the majority stand to gain by new housing, and they can elect a majority of MPs under the UK system, then the NIMBY voice is moot (although there will be no doubt resistance at local level where much of the planning will take place).
- theironhammer 3y ago
  Don't get forget a lot of MPs are landlords. And not just Tory MPs.
asdff 3y ago
New housing means the area is worthy of investment. Homeowners should want that for their communities, it makes their homes more valuable than those in communities that developers pass over. Plus the more people living in an area, the more pressure on housing, the more your single family home would fetch compared to a less dense area. Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan?
- bufio 3y ago
  What investment?
  - asdff 3y ago
    Investment from anything. Developers looking to make apartments. People looking to open stores or restaurants. Community groups. These are all examples of investing time or money into a community, all of which affect property value. Given two homes in a city, one where you see new restaurants opening and new apartments and community events all summer, and one that's the same sleepy retiree community its always been, you can probably guess which one is more valuable.
- nerdawson 3y ago
  Given the shortage of land available for new housing, there are very few areas developers wouldn't choose to build. As a homeowner, I'd be opposed to most new housing developments in my area. New developments aren't backed by the same level of investment in local services such as transport, schools, and GP surgeries. > Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan? I think this is the key flaw in your argument. I chose to live in a village, not a city.

danjac 3y ago

Only if those people who are going to be disadvantaged have political power. If the majority stand to gain by new housing, and they can elect a majority of MPs under the UK system, then the NIMBY voice is moot (although there will be no doubt resistance at local level where much of the planning will take place).

theironhammer 3y ago
Don't get forget a lot of MPs are landlords. And not just Tory MPs.

asdff 3y ago

New housing means the area is worthy of investment. Homeowners should want that for their communities, it makes their homes more valuable than those in communities that developers pass over. Plus the more people living in an area, the more pressure on housing, the more your single family home would fetch compared to a less dense area. Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan?

bufio 3y ago
What investment?
- asdff 3y ago
  Investment from anything. Developers looking to make apartments. People looking to open stores or restaurants. Community groups. These are all examples of investing time or money into a community, all of which affect property value. Given two homes in a city, one where you see new restaurants opening and new apartments and community events all summer, and one that's the same sleepy retiree community its always been, you can probably guess which one is more valuable.
nerdawson 3y ago
Given the shortage of land available for new housing, there are very few areas developers wouldn't choose to build. As a homeowner, I'd be opposed to most new housing developments in my area. New developments aren't backed by the same level of investment in local services such as transport, schools, and GP surgeries. > Ask yourself if as an investor you'd rather own a single family home in some New Jersey farm town, or a lot in Manhattan? I think this is the key flaw in your argument. I chose to live in a village, not a city.