Barker Review of Hoousing

[james armstrong]

> > hi,
> > has anyone got mixed up with the Barker review?
> > I heard of it last week and banged off 'evidence' - my opinion on
>the main
> > cause of unaffordable houses,
> > being the land monopoly ,followed closely by the cash from the
>Common Agri
> > Policy ending up in the landowners pockets.
> > The ridiculous situation that most people cannot afford a house in
>their
> > lifetime seems to me a red hot potato. Dissatisfied people in bad,
>life
> > drainingly expensive or no housing will act when they understand
>that the
> > 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
>my mind
> > missed these, the main   points.but did make  the point that
>housing is
> > politicaly motivated.
> >
> > The review apparently stopped taking evidence on Aug 4th.
> >
> > the Review was set up by John Prescott to look into the 'housing
>crisis'and
> > aims to get something called 'affordable housing' and social
>housing yet
> > ignores the land price which is the element in cost that is rising
>and the
> > 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
>the Barker
> > Review  and believing  it 'missing the point'
> > about the cause of the 'crisis' I have a 1,000 word digest which I
>would
> > 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'
>that the
> > actual and potential
> > most important builders of houses , historically and in other
>countries
> > contemporarily , and the most highly motivated,i.e. the self-build
>house
> > builder is not mentioned in the RTPI evidence.
> >       Also the unrecognised anomaly that ' ownership ' of land is
>always a
> > 100% monopoly , that it is traded as a  commodity and a  'market' ,
>that the
> > rise in land prices is the determining cause of the rise in house
>prices,
> > (.'site value' ie land,  is the largest cost in  housing costs,
>that it
> > offers the most scope for reduction ) that land costs are rising
>while
> > actual construction costs and materials are  falling due to
>improved
> > mechanisation , standardisation and technical improvements,   makes
> > discussion of 'housebuilding',' affordable housing', 'social
>housing' ,
> > without addressing this 'motor' which leads the housing 'drive'
>misdirected.
> >     There are reasons to believe that the Chancellor of the
>Exchequer's
> > terms to the review misunderstands the nature of the problem.
> >
> >   My qualification is that perhaps unusually, I have financed, site-
>located,
> > designed, planned, drafted, building regs detailed, costed and part
>built,
> > part contracted out  a house in  London's Finchley and Muswell
>Hill,  lived
> > in it and sold it.  I did this while unemployed.   I have taken an
> > independent look at  house provision.  I have experience of the
>same in
> > 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
>an active
> > 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
>housing
> > needed by the population, provide unlimited self employment and
>absolutely
> > 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
>standpoint ,
> > is , like the evidence of the RTPI ,unlikely to effect the "crisis"
>or even
> > 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