[diggers350] Barker Review of Hoousing

muscardinus muscardinus at cyber-rights.net
Mon Aug 18 16:36:43 BST 2003

Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 08:36:38 -0700 james armstrong <james36armstrong at hotmail.com>

>> > Self-build along with ending the land monopoly  can
>provide all the<BR>
>> > needed by the population, provide unlimited self employment
>> > reduce the price of the self build house and deflate the<BR>
>>artificial  boom in<BR>
>> > existing total  house stock.<BR>
>> >    With respect, the Review, without taking
>into account this<BR>
>>standpoint ,<BR>
>> > is , like the evidence of the RTPI ,unlikely to effect
>the "crisis"<BR>
>>or even<BR>
>> > understand the issues.<BR>
>> ><BR>
>> > I would like this evidence to be put before the Review.<BR>
>> ><BR>
>> > james Armstrong<BR>


Increasing the council tax on second homes significantly, perhaps three
or four times as much tax as would be paid if it was a primary home,
would bring some generally unoccupied houses back onto the market. If
they were not immediately bought up by even wealthier multiple home owners
then there would be far less need to build new houses. To myself at least,
 it does seem a waste to be building new things when there are so many
good but wasted old things around. However, I doubt Kate Barker's review
will propsode this, as it would reduce trade for the big house-building
companies, and this government *loves* companies.

The review will probably just put pressure [or give money] on the building
companies to build horrible housing estates in fields on the edge of
towns and cities, which isn't good for anything.

The official site of the Barker Review:

Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.3


Get your free encrypted email at http://www.cyber-rights.net

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list