Barker Review of Hoousing
james36armstrong at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 17 16:36:38 BST 2003
> > hi,
> > has anyone got mixed up with the Barker review?
> > I heard of it last week and banged off 'evidence' - my opinion on
> > cause of unaffordable houses,
> > being the land monopoly ,followed closely by the cash from the
> > Policy ending up in the landowners pockets.
> > The ridiculous situation that most people cannot afford a house in
> > lifetime seems to me a red hot potato. Dissatisfied people in bad,
> > drainingly expensive or no housing will act when they understand
> > cause is the land monopoly. (see judith Whately's 'Farmers are
>going out of
> > business' this week.
> > I read the evidence of the Royal town Planning Institute which to
> > missed these, the main points.but did make the point that
> > politicaly motivated.
> > The review apparently stopped taking evidence on Aug 4th.
> > the Review was set up by John Prescott to look into the 'housing
> > aims to get something called 'affordable housing' and social
> > ignores the land price which is the element in cost that is rising
> > biggest in the cost of building a house- the site cost, ie land
> > I have further info for anyone interested.
> > here is my letter to the review.
> > To: <consultation at b...>
> > Subject: evidence to the review
> > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:12:13 +0100
> > I have just learned of the review .
> > having read the evidence of the Royal Town Planning Institute to
> > Review and believing it 'missing the point'
> > about the cause of the 'crisis' I have a 1,000 word digest which I
> > like to submit to the review.
> > My standpoint is not even considered as one of the
>stakeholders in the
> > RTPI evidence.
> > It is that of the self- builder. It is simptomatic of the 'crisis'
> > actual and potential
> > most important builders of houses , historically and in other
> > contemporarily , and the most highly motivated,i.e. the self-build
> > builder is not mentioned in the RTPI evidence.
> > Also the unrecognised anomaly that ' ownership ' of land is
> > 100% monopoly , that it is traded as a commodity and a 'market' ,
> > rise in land prices is the determining cause of the rise in house
> > (.'site value' ie land, is the largest cost in housing costs,
> > offers the most scope for reduction ) that land costs are rising
> > actual construction costs and materials are falling due to
> > mechanisation , standardisation and technical improvements, makes
> > discussion of 'housebuilding',' affordable housing', 'social
> > without addressing this 'motor' which leads the housing 'drive'
> > There are reasons to believe that the Chancellor of the
> > terms to the review misunderstands the nature of the problem.
> > My qualification is that perhaps unusually, I have financed, site-
> > designed, planned, drafted, building regs detailed, costed and part
> > part contracted out a house in London's Finchley and Muswell
> > in it and sold it. I did this while unemployed. I have taken an
> > independent look at house provision. I have experience of the
> > France. CAP is one of the biggest single influences in the
>land 'market' and
> > therefore the cost of land for housing.I understand the CAP
>regime. I am
> > also an environmentalist and professional nature guide. I take
> > and I would say informed role in campaigning for review of the land
> > monopoly.
> > Self-build along with ending the land monopoly can provide all the
> > needed by the population, provide unlimited self employment and
> > reduce the price of the self build house and deflate the
>artificial boom in
> > existing total house stock.
> > With respect, the Review, without taking into account this
> > is , like the evidence of the RTPI ,unlikely to effect the "crisis"
> > understand the issues.
> > I would like this evidence to be put before the Review.
> > james Armstrong
Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile
More information about the Diggers350