Recent searches
Search options
Here's Rowan Moore's agenda for addressing the housing crisis:
1. Reform taxes;
2. Transform empty buildings;
3. Build public housing;
4. Use land well [better]
5. Build sustainably;
6. Build beautifully.
'The prize is to make, through the places where people live, a better version of the society we have now'!
Its a sensible plan but not one that looks like it would be adopted in its entirety, although elements are emerging as policy (ish)!
@ChrisMayLA6 2 and 4 I think are entirely possible while respecting sound, libertarian values. 5 and 6 are fairly irrelevant to solve the problem at hand. 1 I would suspect it not going in my preferred direction. And 3 would not be so good from a libertarian perspective.
I'd agree on 6, while 5 is of course also related to a different agenda, and while I'm not surprised you're unsympathetic to 3. I wonder if one framed it as allowing people to have a 'real' choice rather than one dictated to by the structures of society you might be more supportive. If we are interested in choice, given how housing works the provision of a 'safety net' of pubic housing ensure everyone has a choice not just those who've accused wealth, isn't that a good thing?
@ChrisMayLA6 Ahh... this logic was part of the victory of the swedish moderate party. They tried to square the public with liberty by arguing that, for instance, day care removes a problem from your agenda, and thus gives you more choice.
For me, the answer of if this is permissible lies if we look a bit deeper. Who is the nresponsible for paying for the daycare, orthe public housing? It is people, through taxes, and if that is done against their consent, it is not so good.
However! In our
@ChrisMayLA6 imperfect, non-libertarian world, I can see a few ideas I could live with.
1. Tax deductible savings for housing.
2. Support to construction companies, but this is difficult since in 10 cases out of 10 the system is gamed or badly designed. I think the better approach is deregulation.
3. Shifting money from foreign aid and green projects to housing.
While I would be against 3. it is also a popular way of re-alloctaing funding; 2. I would agree with - the construction sector are past masters at gaming any system of regulation/support, and on 1. used to be a (general) tax relief on mortgages, but this is no longer the case.... there are also forms of ISAs in the UK that allow savers to build deposits free of tax... but this has hardly been transformational
@ChrisMayLA6 The problems with tax reliefs on mortgages is that it incentivises borrowing, and that in turn, can lead to an unstable economy if too many people sit with too much in loans.
So since I think the only point where we might have some common ground is 2, although I think this will likely be gamed, the question is... how would you avoid that?
No, I agree on tax relief on loans - easier finance has been one of the key drivers of high property prices - if anything I'd like to see financial access reduced while social housing picks up the demand from those 'locked out' of the private housing market - at least for the tractional decade(s) that it would take for house prices to drop...
1/2
The support of construction firms is difficult to pull off without them gaining the system (as we agree)... but perhaps something like awarding lucrative/stable (large?) public housing contracts with a requirement that while those project are undertaken a certain quota of private housing would need to be built for them to see outside the arrangement.... but any surplus houses built become social housing?
(not fully thought through but might work?)
@ChrisMayLA6 I would love to be able to attend an open meeting between the big uk contruction companies and the government, to see how a good, honest and open discussion on this topic would play out.
@ChrisMayLA6 *end the right to buy, and then build public housing. There's no point if the councils loose them after 1 tenant.
Agreed! Without an end to RtB, public hosing policy will continue to fail to deliver any stability