At the Swanage Town Council meeting a little while ago, Gary Suttle raised the issue with Steve Dring (Core Strategy) that the second home council tax does not get reinvested back into Purbeck but disappears into the depths of Dorset. Could we not encourage Tax 200 and lobby to make sure that all of this tax supports either affordable local affordable housing or community sports facilities for Swanage and its villages.
Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 11:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
137 comments:
Second home owners should obviously pay less council tax if they are not resident all year around and already pay council tax elsewhere.
Now that 7% of Purbeck is 2nd home, that sounds tempting, but I can imagine DCC constructing a press release about how the whole of Dorset benefits from a Dorset wide tax and that fragmenting this would have a negative effect on it's plans to enhance all of our lives.
D'ya think I should apply for a job with 'em?
I could be a mole.
Step up from what I am!
Ridiculous, second home owners shouldn't have to pay a second council tax. That would not be fair. Obviously they should pay an additional, and far more punitive, Community Tax for their selfish, greedy, community destroying lives.
So should they pay for the NHS twice, car tax twice?
This is a bit confusing - Gary Suttle stated at a meeting of Swanage Town (sic - should be Parish) Council that Purbeck District Council receives little of the second home tax from Dorset County Council?
I presume he is referring to the reduction in Council Tax on second homes? My point is why is Gary bringing this up at an STC meeting, when surely PDC is the right place?
So should they pay for the NHS twice, car tax twice?
Answer to this is if you have 2 cars yes, you do have to, if there are 2 people - yes, you "pay" for 2lots of NHS unless you're on benefits - and if you are filling 2lots of dustbins etc. yes - surey you pay twice for this 2, as in 2 ice creams or anything else. As for greedy, selfish swine etc. - steady on a bit.
sorry but I cannot understand this.
Swanage has lost almost all its big hotels, and but for a few shops and the environment there is nothing to attract people here. We should be doing everything in our power to attract second home owners
'We should be doing everything in our power to attract second home owners'
Couldn't agree more. Swanage positively discriminates against second home owners. Until it finds a purpose (quarrying is long over) it will remain a cul-de-sac, byepassed by the 21st century.
If you don't believe me, just watch the next Olympics - Swanage's benefit will be marginal.
Fact.
'sorry but I cannot understand this.
Swanage has lost almost all its big hotels, and but for a few shops and the environment there is nothing to attract people here. We should be doing everything in our power to attract second home owners'
Why do you think its lost all its big hotels, guest houses, B&B..because now we only have the campsites left, the rich and famous, used to support the hotels, guest houses and B&B, now they have second homes. Ok, we cant do anything about the ones we already have, but even the second home owners are realising that they are having an effect on the very communities that they have a second homes in.
Why are the schools and shops closing they say. Aha because we don't have enough people living here, because you have priced us out of our own homes. If they were taxed 200% for the privalidge then it could be reinvested back into our local economy. Nothing wrong with attracting tourists, they will pay for their accommodation, support employment and local economy and support our local shops too.
I do know some really nice second home owners, but can't help feeling that it would be better for people to live here permanently.
One of the posts says its 7% second homes, that sounds ok, problem is that in some parts its 70%. Tax 200 please.
Second home owners should obviously pay less council tax if they are not resident all year around and already pay council tax elsewhere
Do you think so? Why? Who keeps the pubs going through the winter, who keeps the shops going through the winter, who clears up the bins when the badgers tip them over, who sweeps the streets, who farms the countryside, who works in the hospitals, who puts the fires out, who campaigns for the tip, who saves the accident department. Mmm do you really think that they cannot help to maintain the Purbecks for their pleasures.
"If you don't believe me, just watch the next Olympics - Swanage's benefit will be marginal.
Fact".
I'd be terrified if it was anything else. The Olympics are one of the worlds biggests get-togethers, why should a small town, 30 miles from the nearest - not awfully popular - Olympic event, gain anything more than marginally?
Mind you, by Swanages stds marginal could be useful.
I'm also delighted to hear from all the free-marketers posting on here. Why aren't you railing against the W'ern worlds Gov'ts for bailing out the Banks?
You may be about to find your narrow, greedy, selfish view of the world is about to be changed.
I hope.
'If they were taxed 200% for the privalidge then it could be reinvested back into our local economy. Nothing wrong with attracting tourists, they will pay for their accommodation, support employment and local economy and support our local shops too.'
Ah, Das Kapital reigns in Swanage!!
Those days are over, my friend. Many of those with second homes are no more wealthy than you, and are happy to contribute to the local economy.
The problem is JOBS. What jobs can Swanage attract so that young families can remain - and even come - here? No manufacturing, due to the poor road connections.
Service/tourism? Doing it now. The only other one is high technology. Attract internet and web design firms to Purbeck, a far more conducive area for people with creative minds that London or the Midlands. This will take some lateral thinking.......low tax zones, corporate incentives, better schools, reasonably priced homes. Accentuate the positive, not the negative. Think of possible solutions for a change, my friend - don't be negative!
Ah, here we go!
I ask you to name one country where socialism (not 'mixed economy', such as France, but out and out socialism) has succeeded, and which has not been caught up in the greed of bankers (I will grant you that point. Bankers have behaved deplorably. So have estate agents).
China? Cuba? Come on, go for it!! I can't wait!!
Gordon's nose has been in the trough as much as anyone's. I would love you to define your utopian view of the economy, and how Swanage will benefit from it? Please educate me!
Punative taxation for second home owners will not benefit Swanage in any way, shape or manner.
I'm not quite sure who's talking to whom here, but I'm 6:43.
"Many of those with second homes are no more wealthy than you"
Duh, they have 2 homes and presumably a car, they are far more wealthy than I am, ".... and are happy to contribute to the local economy." I entirely agree with that bit.
Jobs have always been a problem, this is well known. PDC are trying to build 'starter units', PDC and County are trying to promote the Winfrith site.
The Purbeck Film festival is promoting local film makers, Steve Darrington is promoting Swanage thru his unflagging musical efforts.
Then suddenly an explosion of Socialism. Obviously Socialism hasn't been successful anywhere, but neither has Capitalism.
Countries that have followed the 'free market' principle - mainly the US and us, now have banks - 'the heart of capitalism' - supported (owned) by the people - good strong Socialist principle - and the bit that most people seem to be forgetting is that we've reverted to Keynesian economics.
When times are bad the Govt spends, when times are good the Govt clears its debt. Don't knock it, the last time we were in a situation like this (1945) we went Keynesian and this led into 'the golden age of capitalism' i.e. the '50's and the '60's.
France and germany haven't done as bad as us cuz they have better ethics, better morals if you prefer. If you don't believe me name 2 british banks who have had no problems with credit crunch.
Given up yet?
Triodos and the Co-op, 2 banks with ethics.
Forget all the pathetic political name calling, it's simply a matter of ETHICS.
Good standards, morals, not ripping people off, however you want to put it, it's about ETHICS.
More second home owners that's what we need for Swanage. It's obvious that this is the only way forward. Swanage is no good for anything else apart from second homes. Ok then locals lets march right on out of this town and let them take over, what a brilliant idea!
Let's get this back on track. Arguing about politics is not the point of this thread.
It seems that attacking second home owners is not very productive. They invariably contribute to the local economy. What local services do they use, and does this use disadvantage the local community? If locals visit elsewhere, and use local services, should they be charged for this?
It would be interesting to find out just how much additional income to Swanage would be made IF second home owners paid the full amount?
I am much more interested in discovering how the 7.25 million pound windfall the town has just made will be invested for the good of Swanage. Is anybody else interested in this?
Punative taxation for second home owners will not benefit Swanage in any way, shape or manner
Punitive taxation-not a punishment but a sensible way for those who are able to afford it, it could be seen as a way of paying local people to to maintain their playgrounds.
Wouldn't it take an Act of Parliament to change the law on taxation of second homes?
Wouldn't this have to be imposed across the country?
Just wondering.....
What politician is going to tell voters they can no longer aspire to a country cottage or seaside apartment? A short suicide note I suspect.
If they can affrod a second home , then they should be able to pay more tax as far as I am concerned. Then that extra tax should be pumped back into swanage or the people who live here all year round should pay less tax.
Some people pay 60% plus of everything they earn in various taxes. They get a bit funny if are taxed again and again.
Tax 'em, I say. Give the dosh to us wot 'ave to live 'ere all year 'round.
Ain't rite all dese outsiders livin in our town eneway. Swanage fer the locals!!!
TAX 'EM!!!!
hey 10:48
I suggest that we leave them to their ranting
A lack of understanding of phrases like 'mixed community' and believing that we have the right to raise and re-distribute taxes locally, make me assume that Noddy has staged his coup.
Good to see the discussion getting more lively.
Mmm..the way I see it, more recently, is that PDC seem to be opening doors. Younger and new staff within the planning department and throughout. A few more who would like to see some radical changes, but they are not able to suggest these policies without local backing. If we think that Swanage and local villages would benefit from raised second home taxation then shout loudly, and send your proposals to PDC. Throughout PDC documents and policies comments about the impact of second homes may be found. Comments such as second homes are having an impact on the local price of houses. Tax 200 is not a new idea, it has been around for a while. Some regions limit second homes.
'Wouldn't it take an Act of Parliament to change the law on taxation of second homes?
Wouldn't this have to be imposed across the country?
Just wondering.....
Are you suggesting that we should give up on this idea, or that we should be doing something about it?
What politician is going to tell voters they can no longer aspire to a country cottage or seaside apartment? A short suicide note I suspect.
Or not, it may engage more people to vote, not many doing this right now, because policies are ****
How many 'local' politicians have second homes in these parts ?? !!
Vote local
I have asked this before and never got an answer. How much lower would prices be without second home buyers?
If restrictions would lower prices a lot existing owners are not going to vote to have their wealth destroyed are they? If it is a small enough difference not to upset voters what is all the fuss about? Politics is the art of the possible which this quite clearly is not.
By the way, the soviet union failed to do much about second homes which were as much of a problem in Moscow. Couples got round the restrictions by the simple expedient of divorcing and having a Moscow apartment and a dacha as two single people.
'I have asked this before and never got an answer. How much lower would prices be without second home buyers?'
I'm struggling a bit about the previous post, as it covers several arguments. I'll stick to the one I quoted here.
If second home owners from outside Purbeck did not exist, then the meteoric rise in property prices over the past ten years would not have taken place so fast or so high. If property prices were based on 4x or 5x local income (not income of Londoners etc.), then prices would have stayed where they were in 1998/9, plus wage and RPI increases. The 'wealth' in property is illusary; until you sell it is worth what you last paid for it. Purbeck has been slower to feel the effects of the drop in property prices, so yes, it has been a good investment.
But at what cost? I bought a small, one bedroom flat in a converted former hotel in Park Rd for 36,000 pounds in 1996. I sold it - with some difficulty - to a young couple for 48,000 pounds in 2000. They struggled to pay the mortgage but couldn't on a local salary. A similar flat just over it was listed recently at 150,000 pounds - mine would be the same now - an increase of 300% since I sold it. The cheapest flat for sale in town is 99,000 pounds. How can young people afford it?
So the wealth that seems so beneficial to the previous poster is in fact destroying the chance for younger people to stay in this town. Second home owners have hugely inflated local property prices. For our young people, renting is an option, but people want their own homes, one day. A dilemma?
The only solutions (if one wants the young to stay) are to build subsidised public housing, or wait for prices to crash, or to encourage new, high paying firms to move to Swanage so higher salaries can be paid. It is not easy, or inexpensive to do this. This is the result of the huge increase in 'wealth' in property that has been cited above. The issue must be discussed - it is related to second homes issues, school rolls and educational provisions, and transport issues. It is key to these, and other, issues facing Swanage - keeping younger, local people - our future - in town.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/doc/Homesforthefuture.doc
Our vision
We want everyone to have access to a decent home at a price they can afford, in a place where they want to live and work. Good quality, affordable housing enables stable and secure family lives: we are all healthier, happier and wealthier when we have decent homes close to schools, healthcare and transport links.
But this is not just an issue for families. Good housing can improve our social, environmental and economic well-being. It helps create better communities that can attract investment and skilled workers. And getting the design right can also improve the environment and reduce our carbon footprint.
Therefore, the strategic housing decisions we take collectively over the next few years are critical to the life chances of the next generation.
9:57 PM
Punative taxation for second home owners will not benefit Swanage in any way, shape or manner.
Why? Gary et al should shout louder.
The last post makes me think that he or she would just as soon place a toll booth at all entrances to Swanage (both of them, so not a huge task) and charge 'outlanders' a huge sum to enter Swanage. What a great idea! Let's offend and repulse the main source of revenue to our businesses and local economy.
Here's a more constructive suggestion - make an analysis of how much of an increase will be created if all (someone suggested 7% of homes) of Swanage's second home owners paid the full freight of property rates. Would this go very far in paying for the other challenges mentioned in this thread? Would it even make up for the contribution these owners make to the local economy in other ways?
I have made a few estimates and think the answer is No.
If you want Gary Suttle to shout louder, you should have asked him to remind the Council about this before they voted to sell the holiday park outright rather than find a better way of producing an income stream for the town over the next century and a bit. Gary is a very good accountant - perhaps on behalf of the Town Council he can explain how 7.25 million invested safely will produce anything like the amount SBV was producing for the town for the next 105 years?
In fact, this question should be asked at the next Town Hall meeting. I'll be there.
"If second home owners from outside Purbeck did not exist, then the meteoric rise in property prices over the past ten years would not have taken place so fast or so high."
In the post you were struggling with I asked for evidence of this assertion. Where is it? Prices have risen almost as much in places with no second homes as they have here. Are you really claiming housing here would be half or a third of what it is now without them?
Property values are no more illusory than other values. If you think anyone is going to get elected on a platform of "vote for me and I will half the value of your house" you are sadly mistaken.
The whole approach of some posters is that people who are richer than them should be scapegoated, punished or banished. Now where have I heard that before?
"If second home owners from outside Purbeck did not exist, then the meteoric rise in property prices over the past ten years would not have taken place so fast or so high."
But this is true. I think some of the confusion is caused by mixing 'second home owners' with those who have sold up elsewhere and bought here when then market was booming, causing property prices to spike. And I am not proposing devaluing property prices (except through natural market forces. What goes up can go down - anybody who owns shares appreciates this).
Are you asserting that locals caused the surge in property prices without the influence of outsiders making an impact? Where do locals find an income to sustain these high prices? I suggest more money comes from those moving to Swanage than those already here. Not always, not entirely, but to a level to have caused property prices to rise more than they would have through levels sustained by local employment. Clearly Swanage is a desireable place to retire: safe, pleasant, even a touch 'old-world'.
All good.
We can debate these points ad infinitum, but the problem remains: Swanage is too expensive for young people who want to stay here and do not have private means to buy a house.
And seeking a solution by targeting second home owners' rates may not markedly help this situation and might even prove to be deleterious.
I don't understand why this situation exists. You can buy a two bed flat in Swanage for £140,000. So why don't all the rich retired folk buy one and let it out for £300 a week netting a cool 11% per year, and solving the housing shortage.
Probably because you can rent a two bed flat for £150 a week. So how much less do people in social housing pay for similar?
"Are you asserting that locals caused the surge in property prices without the influence of outsiders making an impact?"
No. The surge in house prices in Swanage, the UK in general, the USA, Spain etc was caused in great measure by a huge amount of credit looking for someone to borrow it. A tsunami of money hit the property market. A house is worth what someone is willing to lend on it and if that goes up the price of the house does.
I don't think the ratio between Swanage and, for instance, London prices has changed a great deal in the last 20 or 30 years. It beats me why anyone looks for a local explanation. You need to look at the economic history of the last few decades and the rate of capital creation.
'A house is worth what someone is willing to lend on it and if that goes up the price of the house does.'
............
Not always true. A house is worth what it will get at the point of sale. There are many, many home loans foolishly made which are 'under water' - which means the resale value is less than the loan due to a fall in property prices. Remember the stupidity of 90-100+% loans made at the height of the boom? If property prices in an area have fallen below the amount loaned, then that loan is 'under water' - into negative equity.
One reason France has avoided the worst of the credit crunch and bank failures is that it requires a much higher degree of equity from the purchaser - 30 or more per cent, I believe.
Swanage property values have fared better than a lot of places but I am sure there are some properties whose loans are 'under water' if they try to sell at the moment.
We carry on with this debate, but it is a side issue - my original point remains - how will young, local people afford to remain in Swanage after the surge in property prices this decade? How will they afford it? We oldies take comfort in our 'wealth' from the property boom, while the next generations pay for our fortune. We had better be prepared to will our property to our children. They will desperately need it (provided the government doesn't try to tax our estates to death).
If young people cannot raise the money to buy homes at current prices, then the market will eventually correct itself, and property values will come in line with local incomes, unless the influx of affluent new residents come to Swanage who can afford to maintain these prices. Time will tell how this important and moral issue resolves itself.
Why do you assume young people would expect to be able to buy a home? You have to rent for a few years and both land a well paid jobs in order to facilitate this. It's happening up and down the country. Swanage has a special problem that local wages are relatively low. May I suggest we all think about how to secure better local work rates rather than market intervention.
To the previous poster-
I agree that young people must wait, save and earn the privilege of becoming a home owner. I also believe that the opportunity to do so is almost a human right, but one that must be earned.
And if you read my earlier posts you will see that I have always seen improved wages as the key to this.
Swanage's remote location and challenges of its transport connections mean that this area will not be very conducive to secondary (manufacturing) industrial activities. It is primarily a primary (fishing, farming, quarrying) and tertiary (service) industrial area. Primary industries are fairly low paid activities. Service work related to tourism is also relatively low paid. However, service industries that command higher pay could be attracted here due to the extraordinary quality of life. Hi-tech, internet-related jobs might find Swanage an attractive place to relocate if financial inducements are provided. Remember, the high-tech plutocrats all know Poole and Sandbanks, our neighbours. These people look for sites than are especially attractive to young, creative minds. We must bear in mind that Winfrith is working hard to attract this type of industry, so we may have to try to ally Swanage as a satellite location for this, or present Swanage as a viable home for people working at Winfrith.
I know this may sound far-fetched to some but I think it is worth discussing. London, and especially Cambridge (the UK's centre of high technology), will all know this area and will view it as an attractive alternative to the city for some of its activities. If any readers of this blog have experience in this field, could you please let me know if my idea holds any merit?
If young people cannot raise the money to buy homes at current prices, then the market will eventually correct itself, and property values will come in line with local incomes, unless the influx of affluent new residents come to Swanage who can afford to maintain these prices. Time will tell how this important and moral issue resolves itself.
11:07 AM
If younger people cannot raise the funds to buy at current prices-thats a fact, they can't, not unless the main breadwinner is prepared to commute to London for a city income and just return to his/her family for the weekend. Is this to be recommended for a happy young family?
So what is going on here, 25 years ago we bought ours for £48,000 now its been valued at over 400,000. Have our local incomes increased to reflect these current house prices NO. We don't earn much more now than we did 25 years ago. No city bonuses!!
So, who is it that is pushing the house prices up??
"So, who is it that is pushing the house prices up??"
The same economic forces that have pushed houses prices up in so many other places of course. Strangely enough Swanage is not the only place on the planet to have had an asset price bubble. The only way you can have a mortgage driven price explosion is for huge amounts of money to be put in to the mortgage system by investors. It cannot happen without that for obvious reasons. you need to be looking at why that happened and why all this money is available for investment/lending.
sorry having mortgages available is a good thing isn't it?
'The only way you can have a mortgage driven price explosion is for huge amounts of money to be put in to the mortgage system by investors. It cannot happen without that for obvious reasons. you need to be looking at why that happened and why all this money is available for investment/lending.'
The huge amounts of money were not entirely placed into building societies through investors or depositors (you and me) - much was given out carelessly, then those toxic debts were then sold on to a whole new speculative market, and grew into what we now call the credit crunch. These loans were supported by the next loans to be issued and by speculation, not by depositors' or investors' assets as you imply. This created the toxic assets that led to the meltdown of our banks and financial institutions.
Hence IMHO the wealth you think the high value of your house has created is based upon lending which was not only reckless but was, in effect, a sort of Ponzi scheme, allowed through lax regulations. The 30 or more billion pounds given by HMGov to the banks this week is there to prop up the very toxic loans which have created the inflated value of property - the very 'wealth' you claim your house has provided. Hence a case could be made that the government has just subsidised your wealth, in the hope that, long term, it will regain the lot. Where did this money come from? I suggest it was added to the already out of control national debt.
I well remember having to queue for months for my first mortgage, which B&B wouldn't give me until others had deposited a like amount in them. Innocent days! That is how it should work, and is closer to the French model which has avoided the worst of the credit crunch.
Will we learn from this?
'sorry having mortgages available is a good thing isn't it?'
Of course. Home ownership would not be possible without them.
But, they must be treated with respect and propriety. To use the value of a home to create equity is as risky as borrowing to invest in the stock market. The rule has not changed: save as much as possible to make as large a deposit as you can, and borrow as little as you have to within reason. It is not a bank account!
Or get away from this ridiculous British obsession with being a 'home owner'.
Build loads of Council houses and rent them out at levels locals afford.
"These loans were supported by the next loans to be issued and by speculation, not by depositors' or investors' assets as you imply. This created the toxic assets that led to the meltdown of our banks and financial institutions."
I am not too sure what you mean by this. The value of housing is always supported by lenders willingness to lend now and in the future. When this stutters prices fall for a while as we see at the moment.
It is a characteristic of markets that they are prone to bursts of "irrational exuberance" or bubbles. That is what happens. Lenders are in business to lend, if borrowers shop around for the largest mortgage what are they supposed to do? If one firm will not lend another will. It all goes horribly wrong from time to time. It does it of its own accord.
If you want an explanation follow the money, an old and basic rule in investigating any sort of financial scandal. In this case follow the money back to where it was accumulated. Has it stopped accumulating? No. Will there be another bubble? Yes. A proportion of every pound you spend, every dollar spent, every Euro spent, becomes investment capital and is fed back in looking for a return. What will the next bubble be? I have no idea.
'What will the next bubble be? I have no idea.'
It took a World War to finally turn around the effects of the Great Depression. Sustained growth returned in the post war years, about two decades later.
Japan has a stronger economy than the UK yet it still hasn't fully recovered from a bubble's burst there over a decade ago.
The present economic downturn is far mores serious than anything since the Great Depression, and the usual cyclical bubbles/busts may not return for a long, long time. It will be many years before the toxic assets accumulated over the past decade are cleansed. They will be, but we will not see another period of growth as we have seen this decade, for many, many years - perhaps decades. We will come through this, but only after a sustained and lengthy period of recovery.
'Or get away from this ridiculous British obsession with being a 'home owner'.
Build loads of Council houses and rent them out at levels locals afford.'
And who will subsidise this? If you want affordable housing, you have to develop means of providing cheap housing that is simple and inexpensive to maintain. The country does not have the means to build subsidised housing - the UK is heavily in debt as it is.
But what you suggest is the morally correct answer. Swanage could have provided 325 family homes on the Bay View site, but chose to take the cash instead and run.
How? By winding down the park as licences expire and creating a community trust linked with private investment. As caravans are removed, relocate those remaining and develop the park section by section. Look to system-built buildings such as the IKEA ones, or source lightweight, modular lodge homes. In 14 years, Swanage would have affordable subsidised housing for 325 families, in a public/private scheme. Public housing with the best views found anywhere!
Too late, but perhaps other sites can be found.
I hope 7.56 is unduly pessimistic. In a boom people think things will go upwards for ever and in a recession it looks as if they will go down forever.
In this country the 1929 collapse was prolonged by Chamberlain as chancellor in the 1931 national government pursuing a balanced budget policy through cuts in benefits and public sector salaries. Other countries that were not stifled by a perceived need to keep the markets happy in this way had a faster recovery. When orthodoxy went out of the window in the second world war unemployment vanished, indeed labour shortage was the norm. Output went on armaments rather than consumer goods and what was delayed was a growth in consumer goods. The effect of deficit spending was immediate though.
But where will Britain find the means to grow the economy to ceate a boom? Government borrowing is at an all times high; manufacturng is moribund; exports are few and far between; the country is maxed out on credit and mortgage borrowing. Unemployment is high. Foreign investment is low and the cost of doing business here is relatively high, and restrictive.
From where will the next boom come? For a brief period several years ago it looked as though London could challenge New York as the world's financial leader. Now it is more certain this role will pass to the Far East.
From what source will the next boom occur, besides as a side effect of a boom in other countries?
Before a boom occurs, Britain will undergo a sizable rise in interest rates, as in the early 1990s. This is a natural after effect of too much government indebtedness. And printing more money, as has been happening, will only make this worse, and will continue to devalue the pound.
Unduly pessimistic? We shall see. I would love to be proved wrong, but I see few encouraging signs for the immediate future.
The rise in interest rates in the early 90s was caused by attempting to keep the pound at a certain level vis a vis the mark. You can thank Major and Lamont for that. It strangled the economy and caused a sharp recession. Complete incompetence.
Britain remains one of the largest manufacturing economies in the world despite what the media say. Since we have conducted a competitive devaluation over the past year manufacturing exports will grow as the worlds economy picks up. It may seem strange but when we were seeing headlines about the demise of the "British" car industry a few years ago car output was more or less doubling. Crudely speaking a low pound suits manufacturing, a high pound suits the city.
I notice that a burst of hyper inflation has been seriously advocated as the solution to Japan's problems. I think it is certainly true that until a sharp bout of inflation here has pushed the real value of state debt here down it will be a problem. Less of a problem than the complete collapse of the banks would have been but a problem nevertheless.
Why are we heading for a sharp rise in interest rates? Interest rates are used to keep inflation at target levels so until we have a lot more of that why should they move?
Learning from history?
something we're not very good at.
1945.
Massively in debt, manufacturing ruined, around about a million people about to join the unemployed.
What did we do? We went all Keynesian and spent - big time.
Council houses, NHS, Benefits, New schools etc etc.
Result - the '50's and the 60's, 'The Golden Age of Capitalism'.
The fastest rise in standards of living ever.
Derailed by high oil prices.
Stop worrying, be Keynesian and spend!
In 1945 we had a huge manufacturing capacity but it was tooled up for arms and took a while to adapt. Arguably it was the investment that went in both in the run up to 1939 and through lease lend that enabled the post war prosperity to occur. By the 70s the age of UK engineering equipment was beginning to show and the countries that re-equipped post war courtesy of Marshall aid were at an advantage. Whichever you look at it was public investment and planning that mattered not the wonders of the free market. .
You were doing quite well there until you mentioned the free market!
Keynesian economics drive the market, they load it and tell it to get a move on.
This 'free-market' crap is an illusion created by Maggie et al to fool the general public into believing that unfettered capitalism benefits us; it doesn't, it benefits the few, for a while, and then it all falls off a cliff, when we, you and I, pay out to ensure that capitalism survives.
And is hopefully regulated. And controlled.
by way of an apology!
I may, just may!! have mis-read your last point.
Sorry.
Hmmmmmm. Darwin (the fund that now owns SBV) is not regulated. Wonder if it will affect the town if it goes belly up?
Better deposit that cheque fast, boys!
'Arguably it was the investment that went in both in the run up to 1939 and through lease lend that enabled the post war prosperity to occur.'
'Lend lease'....if memory serves, a program devised by Roosevelt and Churchill to circumvent US neutrality so that it could supply the UK in the war effort before Pearl Harbor. The US supplied (officially 'loaned', hence 'lend') war materiels in exchange for being able to station (hence 'lease') land for U.S. bases, several of which still exist on UK soil.
Not exactly sure how 'lend lease' (not lease lend) 'invested' in the British manufacturing sector as the previous post states, however.
It will be interesting to see how Keynesian economics resurges - whether it adapts to the post credit crunch world. I note several posts laying the demise of Keynesian practice to the rise of Margaret Thatcher. I acknowledge this but, in the name of fairness, have also to acknowledge that New Labour under Blair and Brown seemed quite content to keep Maggie's ideas in this regard alive. One could argue Mssrs. Blair and Brown removed more regulatory powers than Thatcher or Major, moving the country even further away from Keynes and more toward Friedman. One could say the same about Clinton, who deregulated the banking industry and eclipsed Reagan's love affair with deregulation. My point - both the Left and the Right have a lot to answer for.
Oh, but lend lease did. To quote "All For One:One For All
The Story of Lend-Lease"
published by the Office of Lend-Lease Administration in 1943:
"Goods make up about five-sixths of lend-lease (by dollar value), services about one-sixth. In the beginning we lend-leased more food and industrial materials than weapons. But now that our war production is humming, military items make up about 52% of lend-lease goods, agricultural products about 22%, and industrial equipment (meaning raw materials and machine tools) 26%. This last is particularly important, because much time and shipping space is saved when weapons are manufactured close to the battle-fronts themselves."
Churchills "give us the tools and we'll finish the job" had as much to do with machine tools as machine guns.
Lend lease also supplied Russia, China, Australia and New Zealand.
Its some years since I read Correlli Barnett's "The Audit of War" but I do recall that he was scathing about pre-war British industry's lack of ability to make weapons on the scale needed and in particular the machine tool industry.
Seem to be moving away from the orignal topic !
OK, thanks for pointing it out.
Simply put, Swanage or Purbeck cannot unilaterally change the taxation of second homes without an Act of Parliament. If it did so, it could be challenged in the European Courts as inherently unfair if other councils do not do this.
I foresee years of legal challenges and expense which Swanage and PDC cannot afford.
In other words, the idea is a dead duck. I am surprised Gary saw any merit in it. Perhaps he was misquoted.
Gary did not suggest Tax 200, he just raised the awareness of everyone at the meeting that the 90% second home council tax, is not reinvested into Purbeck but disappears into the depths of Dorset.
So, I should have added, that I can seen why tax 200 would be difficult to impliment but is there any way that the existing 2nd Home tax can be used locally. ie affordable housing, sports facilities for Swanage.
Is this an idea: From now on all existing second homes can be sold to second home owners. So this could be a separate housing market, the second home owners can compete within themselves with this. If they think a 2 bedroom bungalow in Worth is worth 1,000000 then so be it. If they have the funds to buy two homes then they can fight over it. Also I agree with the poster that Tax200 should still be implemented.
This housing could be purely set aside as second home housing.
But no other housing would be able to be sold as second homes.
All the remaining housing could then be sold as housing that reflects a local income. It would seem logical that this housing would over time come down in price to something that could be afforded by local people, or people with local incomes.
I expect as usual there will be a reason why this cannot be done.
Talking with others who live around here everyone seems to be pretty fed up with this situation. Perhaps its all the talk of the Core Strategy and house building that has brought this about.
There is a very simple objection. Existing house owners are in effect being asked to accept a large reduction in the value of their property. They might be very altruistic but I doubt many of them would vote for a party that is going to do this to them.While they could perhaps buy other property here they are in trouble if they want to move somewhere that has not introduced the same arrangement.
There is a very simple objection. Existing house owners are in effect being asked to accept a large reduction in the value of their property. They might be very altruistic but I doubt many of them would vote for a party that is going to do this to them.While they could perhaps buy other property here they are in trouble if they want to move somewhere that has not introduced the same arrangement.
Who said anything about being asked to accept a large reduction. As previous poster said it would just bring about a realistic outcome ie represent the price that can be afforded by people with average local incomes. So are you saying then that the reason that the value of homes around here is high, is because it is affected by city incomes. In other words..people who buy our housing as second homes?
"Who said anything about being asked to accept a large reduction. As previous poster said it would just bring about a realistic outcome ie represent the price that can be afforded by people with average local incomes."
This really is complete nonsense. There is no reason for purchasers resident in Swanage, Purbeck or however you want to define, it to be put in a privileged position compared with purchasers elsewhere who face a ratio of price to income very little more favourable than that pertaining here. Are you suggesting a law preventing anyone, anywhere, selling their house for the market rate? That must be the logical conclusion.
Report in the Independent: Reasons why PDC cannot track which house is a second home.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/flipping-outrage-scandal-of-second-homes-is-swept-under-carpet-1812778.html
Flipping outrage! Scandal of second homes is swept under carpet
Reforms of MPs' expenses will exclude one of the most serious and common abuses of the whole system
By Jane Merrick
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Popular UK Destinations
For Brits buying a second home in the UK they appear to be drawn to coastal areas such as Cornwall. The list below shows the top ten places in the UK to invest in a second home.
Cornwall and Isles of Sicily
Cumbria
Dorset
Norfolk
Devon
East Sussex
Northumberland
North Yorkshire
West Sussex
Suffolk
'What Attracts Buyers
When it comes to buying a second home places on the coast will also prove popular. This could all change though as the government cracks down on the number of second homes that people are buying. The most popular places for second homes also tend to be the ones where it is hard for locals to get on the property ladder, so it is understandable why the government is trying to crack down on the number of homes that people are allowed to buy in these areas.
The future for second homes looks set to focus on places that offer a great investment and not just a place for a holiday home. More people are choosing buy-to-let as an option and buying a property to rent out. People are starting to tap into this abroad as well, so instead of buying a second home to live in people are buying them for other people to live in and for them to reap the rewards.
Where someone chooses to buy a second home is always going to be down to personal preference, but there are two things that never fail to attract buyers, a good climate and a good investment opportunity.'
(http://www.asecondhome.co.uk/facts-where-people-are-buying-second-homes.html)
On the purchase of a second home, the owner has two years to elect which of their homes is their principle residence. They do not have to be living in it at the time. Mr Ford explains that after the two years, they lose the right to make a nomination and the onus would fall on them to prove that they were living in the second property if they want to avoid CGT.
Beat the second-home tax trap
Many people do not realise that the two-year election period applies and fail to take advantage, however it is possible to revive it if a third property is purchased, or if the second home becomes your principle residence for a time.
Who wouldn't take this opportunity to invest??
Perhaps those who cannot afford to buy property in Purbeck?
This really is complete nonsense. There is no reason for purchasers resident in Swanage, Purbeck or however you want to define, it to be put in a privileged position compared with purchasers elsewhere who face a ratio of price to income very little more favourable than that pertaining here. Are you suggesting a law preventing anyone, anywhere, selling their house for the market rate? That must be the logical conclusion.
Ok to criticise others, but what is your solution to the high percentage of second homes, v's the need for affordable/rented housing for local people.
"what is your solution to the high percentage of second homes, v's the need for affordable/rented housing for local people."
I don't see why you think there is this relationship. If you can point me to somewhere comparable to Purbeck where the income levels we have here are are sufficient to buy property and the only thing different is the level of second home ownership then you have a point. Failing the identification of such a place this is a false dichotomy.
Property is "unaffordable" in something like 80% of the country according to the figures from the Rowntree Trust. Unless you want to devise different explanations for each place you need to identify common causes throughout the country.
I agree with much stated in the previous post. I also believe that anyone has a right to purchase a property wherever they desire. This leaves the problem of providing housing for locals if the local economy does not provide adequate income for this.
The answer is three-fold: foster higher local salaries through investment in new businesses and improving transport links with the Poole/Bournemouth conurbation; encourage subsidised housing and housing trust for qualified, local buyers only; and await the fall in property prices that is overdue. The latter will happen when inflation and interest rates rise significantly, which will IMHO happen within the next five years. The country simply cannot sustain historically low interest rates forever.
I would strongly advise everyone to switch to a fixed rate mortgage as soon as possible, if they do not have one now.
I agree with the last post. This is a bad time to go into speculative property investing. House prices will stagnate or fall while interest rates rise over the next few years - maybe even over the next decade.
The 'property party' is on its last legs. Don't get caught in the bubble that is going to deflate - or even burst. IMHO the rule of the game now is this: your house is your residence for living, and not your cash cow.
I am surprised prices have not fallen more as they did in the early 90s. I can't help feeling that whichever direction in which prices are going a lot of people assume that they will continue in that direction indefinitely.
Indeed. At their peril.
I agree with much stated in the previous post. I also believe that anyone has a right to purchase a property wherever they desire.
Not sure what you mean by this statement, are you saying that people have a right to buy second homes wherever they choose, or that all people have a right to purchase a prperty wherever they desire.
Still nobody willing to take a stab at quantifying the effect of second home ownership on prices. Would a modest £250,000 house be £225,000, £200,000, £125,000 etc if second home buyers were out of the equation. If you think it would make a worthwhile difference you must have some idea of the size of the difference.
Interesting. Let's apply the French rule, where there has been no credit crunch. Let's assume average local salary in Swanage is circa 20k. 30% down payments required - 70% financed. Income to loan ratio capped at 5 times income = 100k = 70% of purchase price.
Answer: the average home price in Swanage should be 140k based on 20k income.
OK, let's go crazy and assume both husband and wife work. Income 40k. 70% finance = 200k. Total price = 280k.
So let's assume the average household income is 30k - the median figure between on and two working - then the average home value in Swanage is 210k.
Anything above this amount is based on speculation which the present credit crunch is exposing for all it is worth (sic). It is the purchaser from outside Swanage who adds the 'premium' that values property beyond the means of locals.
A 'modest' 250k home is overvalued by 40k or more, or by 20%. This premium is created by higher incomes from outside Swanage.
OK?
'I agree with much stated in the previous post. I also believe that anyone has a right to purchase a property wherever they desire.
Not sure what you mean by this statement, are you saying that people have a right to buy second homes wherever they choose, or that all people have a right to purchase a prperty wherever they desire.'
Yes.
Yes.
No law in thus nation bans the role of the free market. If it produces unequal results, then other means must be found to create a level playing ground. I suggest the creation of a vibrant local economy. Swanage has so much potential. Let's be creative.
If you favour banning second home owners, then let's begin by reducing the value of your home that they have created. Fancy your three bed semi at 98k?
I'll buy it today!
Does putting covenants on houses limiting who can buy them work better?
There have been several examples recently of families cashing in by selling to second homers, against their dead relative's wishes.
Not sure how effective they are, but if they do work they should be free for owners wanting to help the situation.
So let's assume the average household income is 30k - the median figure between on and two working - then the average home value in Swanage is 210k.
Anything above this amount is based on speculation which the present credit crunch is exposing for all it is worth (sic). It is the purchaser from outside Swanage who adds the 'premium' that values property beyond the means of locals.
A 'modest' 250k home is overvalued by 40k or more, or by 20%. This premium is created by higher incomes from outside Swanage.
OK?
Agree, agree, agree !! Can only think that people that agree with second homes, must have one themselves, and as for the sweeping statement about under 40's thinking its ok. Not sure who you are speaking for, but I haven't found this to be the case.
Does some of this sound familiar??
Second homes versus new homes
Monday, November 2, 2009
The MP for the West Cornwall constituency of St. Ives, Andrew George, has called a public meeting to consult local people about future housing plans for Cornwall and for local people in housing need in West Cornwall in particular.
Planning and Housing officers from Cornwall Council and the Governments’ new Homes and Communities Agency will join Mr. George and representatives from local housing associations on a panel of speakers to discuss the local housing challenges which West Cornwall faces on the evening of Friday 13th November at St Keverne Parish Hall.
Mr George has argued that Government policies have “left Cornwall as a developer’s paradise” and that local people’s housing needs remain largely unmet. Mr George has also clashed with local second home owners on The Lizard who funded a High Court Appeal against the building of a fishermen’s jetty at Helford village which is vital for the livelihoods of many local people.
Mr George has campaigned against policies introduced by the previous Conservative Government to subsidise council tax charges on second home owners and has sought Government support to demand tougher regulation and taxes on homes which are only used for part of the year when thousands of families in the local communities do not have a decent first home of their own.
Mr George said, “in the lead up to the next General Election, the debate on affordable housing for locals will hot up. The government are determined to impose 70,000 new houses on Cornwall in the next 16 years.
“Cornwall’s housing stock has more than doubled in the last 40 years making it one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom. Yet, over that time, the housing problems of local people have got markedly worse. Therefore, simply building more unaffordable homes is not the answer. All the Government’s plans do is to turn Cornwall into a developers paradise. We need to give our local communities the planning powers and policy tools to build homes to meet the need of local families; to keep our schools and shops open and to maintain living communities in which local people on local incomes stand a chance of getting a decent home of their own.”
"So let's assume the average household income is 30k - the median figure between on and two working - then the average home value in Swanage is 210k."
OK so far, but what proportion of the difference between this and the actual level do you ascribe to second home owners as distinct from people moving here who are selling property in the south east in most cases and looking to put most of what they get into a house here? I was not asking what the price level would be if it was a purely local market. That is a complete flight of fantasy.
What jobs pay less here than elsewhere? Surely if you are a postman, a nurse, a teacher you get pretty much the same wherever you are so we are talking about a national problem, not something that can be explained in parochial terms.
I forgot to mention that as the average asking price of property here is £341k (http://www.home.co.uk/guides/house_prices.htm?location=swanage) and you think it should be £210k you are asking homeowners to support a change that would reduce their wealth by a considerable chunk and mean they were effectively trapped here because they could not afford to buy elsewhere.
Whether you like it or not people keep their wealth in bricks and mortar. I don't doubt you can construct a morality that condemns this but that is beside the point.
What jobs pay less here than elsewhere? Surely if you are a postman, a nurse, a teacher you get pretty much the same wherever you are so we are talking about a national problem, not something that can be explained in parochial terms.
Who is saying that people are being paid less here? Not the argument. The argument is that the house prices are higher compared with some other areas and are partially influenced by people with high incomes who do not live here (second homes) as in the last posting ie similar problems in other coastal areas such as Cornwall and Devon and inland Lake District and New Forest. Some of these areas have now become designated National Parks which means that second homes can be regulated. Does Purbeck need to become a National Park to receive the same advantages.
http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/docGallery/2574.DOC
16. Average house prices in Purbeck have risen by 100% since 1998, in excess of the national average of 93%. Graph Two below shows the house price increases for Purbeck and this can be compared to the increases for England and Wales, the South West, and Dorset. At £208,000, the average house price in Purbeck now costs almost 9 times the annual average wage (£23,348). Nationally the average house costs around 6.5 times the annual average wage. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation carried out research in 2003 looking at household incomes related to house prices. Purbeck was originally ranked 6th, this was reviewed in 2004 and Purbeck is now ranked 8th.
17. The proportion of second homes in Purbeck is nearly 8 times the national average. Surprisingly there was no recorded increase between 1991 and 2001. The highest concentrations of second homes/holiday homes tend to be mainly along the coast. For example parishes such as Studland (21%), Worth Matravers (16%) and Chaldon Herring (12%). Even in some inland parishes such as Turners Puddle rates are as high as 13%.
(The locals of Worth matravers say that Worth is 70% second homes. The Purbeck Distict Council use the 'Parish of Worth' to work out their stats. The Parish of Worth includedes a much wider area.)
71. There is a serious issue of affordability in the District. This means that many of the residents of the District cannot afford to move or even get on the property ladder to begin with. The District has a requirement that 25-35% of new housing developments is negotiated for local need. A Supplementary Planning Guidance has been prepared on the issue of Affordable Housing and this sets out the way in which the Council will set about implementing the policy. The houses that are negotiated for local need are passed over to a housing association once completed, and then are either rented through the housing association or are put into such schemes as shared ownership, where the housing association will own half and the tenant will own half, and pay rent to the housing association for the half that they own.
Yes, we know about house prices here being an absurd multiple of incomes. The latest figures show Christchurch and East Dorset are worse still.
The idea of forcing sellers to sell at prices related to local incomes is intriguing. How would it work? Who would decide the price of a particular house? How would it be calculated? What happens if someone offers more? What stops a seller adding thousands for "fixtures" the way it used to happen with unfurnished property rentals? We had a system there were rents were set at "fair" levels to reflect incomes which resulted in very little being available and vast premiums being demanded.
Wouldn't it be easier to have a national job evaluation system and even out the incomes a bit rather than meddle with the property market? You can imagine the screams of horror at this.
"There is a serious issue of affordability in the District."
For pity's sake don't you know there is an issue of affordability almost everywhere? Why on earth qualify it with the phrase "in the district" as if property was affordable a few miles away. Are you not aware that the price of property does not plunge when you leave Swanage, Purbeck, Dorset or even the south?
http://www.purbeck.gov.uk/docGallery/2574.DOC
"There is a serious issue of affordability in the District."
For pity's sake don't you know there is an issue of affordability almost everywhere? Why on earth qualify it with the phrase "in the district" as if property was affordable a few miles away. Are you not aware that the price of property does not plunge when you leave Swanage, Purbeck, Dorset or even the south?
This was not a personal statement but a report made by PDC backed by evidence.
You speak as though you do not live here. Of course everyone is aware that there are problems elsewhere too. But we do not live there we live here! So our problem is here. We cannot solve the whole countries problems but can only focus on our immediate community. The Welsh have burned the second homes..fortunately we are trying to discuss this in a more level headed way, but remember we live here and this is personal to us in the Swanage area. Obviously it goes without saying that other areas are having the same problems. This is why Matthew Taylor MP for Truro was asked to submit a report to Gordon Brown re rural communities and specifically about second homes. Matthew Taylor included in his report, information about the problems facing us in Purbeck because they are similar to Cornwall. Yes we face the same problems as coastal areas of Devon and Cornwall. We are in touch with these areas and find we have many things in common.
Could you please say what are the benefits of second home owners on our community.
For the record I moved here in 1948. What I have difficulty with is the parish pump attitude that comes over in remarks like "Could you please say what are the benefits of second home owners on our community." In what sense is it "our community"? That sounds very proprietorial. What exactly do "we" own? Who are we? You could go through just about every identifiable category of people and ask the same question of them. Why do you think second home owners should have to be a benefit? Nobody else is called upon to justify themselves in this way. What other groups that have more money than most of us can we accuse of having a negative value I wonder.
"We cannot solve the whole countries problems but can only focus on our immediate community."
I knew someone would make a crass statement like that. Housing is a national problem and it will require a national solution. Southern coastal resorts have have it more sharply than other places but that does not mean that we can apply some sort of local remedy and end up saying "I'm all right Jack, we can all afford housing in Swanage, pity about those poor devils in Swindon though."
The position you are putting forward is very much like something from Animal Farm in which everybody is equal but Swanage residents are more equal than anybody else.
Still no attempt to quantify the effect on prices of second homes I notice. Yes, if there was just a local market prices would be lower, but Swanage prices are not an island and are largely determined by prices elsewhere in the south. Can you put a figure to the impact of second homes as distinct from people retiring here or choosing to live here and commute to Poole/Bournemouth rather than doing so from places the same distance in the other direction. Since these groups constitute the majority of outside purchasers I think the effect of second home purchases in Swanage is small, but can you come up with a figure and confound me? All I want to see is evidence. All said and done its not much good you setting out to remedy what you see as an evil unless you can demonstrate the ill effects of that evil separated out from other factors.
I am neither advocating any controls over house prices, nor who may or may not buy a house in a given locality, by any government.
I am arguing the point that house prices calculated nationally on many, many multiples of income require continuation of that income stream; a number of new buyers who will jump onto that ladder as others leave it or die off; cheap credit; and a massive injection of government money in the form of credits to lenders. We have had all four for the past decade, which have led to the current bubble in property price. This recession has ended all four factors.
Hence it is only a question of time before this bubble bursts. It cannot be sustained by wishful thinking. The economy will not return to the levels of growth of a few years ago in the next few years.
I would not invest in property I could not comfortably afford, that I could not sustain without a nest egg of six months' income in case I am made redundant, nor will I engage in property speculation at this time.
I am neither advocating any controls over house prices, nor who may or may not buy a house in a given locality, by any government.
I am arguing the point that house prices calculated nationally on many, many multiples of income require continuation of that income stream; a number of new buyers who will jump onto that ladder as others leave it or die off; cheap credit; and a massive injection of government money in the form of credits to lenders. We have had all four for the past decade, which have led to the current bubble in property price. This recession has ended all four factors.
Hence it is only a question of time before this bubble bursts. It cannot be sustained by wishful thinking. The economy will not return to the levels of growth of a few years ago in the next few years.
I would not invest in property I could not comfortably afford, that I could not sustain without a nest egg of six months' income in case I am made redundant, nor will I engage in property speculation at this time.
My apologies for posting the last post twice.
10.10 offers sound advice, although I wish I could find a speculator willing to buy my house.
What has been interesting about the media cover and general discussion of the property price bubble is that it has been presented in terms of unsound decisions made by borrower and "reckless" decisions made by lending institutions as though they were the only parties to the deal. It seems to be assumed that the amount of money available for borrowing expands and contracts passively in response to the amount lending institutions ask for. The facts suggest otherwise. Several things have happened. We have seen the huge growth of the bond market and we have seem vast amount of money accumulate in the oil states, china etc with a desperate need to be fed with a return. For once the cliche "opening the flood gates" is literally true. This money cascaded into housing here and in the USA. The banks simply passed it on. The more of the stuff you have to get rid of the less particular you can be about where it goes. Our exemplar was Northern Rock which was quite happily dishing out massive amounts with very few questions asked.
As we now only too well the transmission mechanism blew up though over enthusiastic use but the flow of money to the oil states and China etc continues. The latter in particular needs to lend it back to us so we can go on buying their goodies. Where else is it going to be invested? They tried developing countries a few decades ago and that went wrong. They tried the former Soviet Union and its possessions but that went wrong. Extending the benefits of home ownership to the poor in the USA and here has gone wrong. What will be next?
"We cannot solve the whole countries problems but can only focus on our immediate community."
I knew someone would make a crass statement like that. Housing is a national problem and it will require a national solution".
It's not a crass comment, gov't has given us the chance to say what we want to see from our local council.
http://www.purbeck-dc.gov.uk/land__premises/local_development_framework/core_strategy.aspx
As to what 'we' own, I think that we have a bit of a problem with our relationship with gov't and need to start saying that anything paid for or run by the gov't is 'ours'. Ok, it causes problems cuz we own the roads and then have to pay tax to use them, but hey ho.
My point is that the land in Dorset 'owned' by DCC is 'ours', and there is quite a bit around Swanage. DCC give us our land and we build affordable housing for locals. A Community Land Trust and/or Covenants will ensure that they remain affordable for locals.
By the way, modal household income in Swanage is between £12 and 15K.
What happens to people who earn 12 or 14k in London, Bristol, Manchester etc etc or dont they matter.? Are second home owners to blame?
I can't help suspecting that MPs and councillors who get a large post bag blaming second home owners simply feel the need to make encouraging noises whether they think anything can be delivered or not. They are hardly likely to refer their constituents to a housing economist for a proper explanation are they. Its funny how the answer always seems to precede the question with the anti-second home faction. Makes it too like "that old fashioned religion" of the song for my taste.
"What happens to people who earn 12 or 14k in London, Bristol, Manchester etc etc or dont they matter.? Are second home owners to blame?"
What happens to .... exactley the same as is happening here, PDC's consultation is part of a nationwide process; and they matter as much as we do.
Are second home ... if life was fair, balanced, reasonable and we lived in warm, caring society then second home owners would be to blame. As we live in a greedy, selfish, self-obsessed - sorry - free market, of course they're not. They are normal people behaving in an entirely legal manner. Most that I know get here as often as possible and spend a lot of money locally.
"What happens to .... exactley the same as is happening here,"
Up to a point. The difference is that in large places the council used to think it was there to supply housing on as large a scale as they could. We had a bit of that in the days of butskellism but never enough. To their undying credit there are tory councillors who accept that selling council houses was a serious policy error, however, the horse has long since bolted.
Another little wrinkle of this whole business is that when someone inherits an ex local authority house in an expensive place they can afford a second home here if they sell it so we are not exactly talking about the filthy rich in many cases, more someone brought up on an LCC housing estate. The political aim of council house sales was in part to create inherited wealth and bolster the tory vote and in that it has succeeded. The knock on costs were never discussed as you might expect. What was the Laurel and Hardy line - "a nice mess you've got us into Stan"? Never mind, we will soon have the same lot running the country again so expect further triumphs of the market economy.
Which is why we need a CLT and/or Covenants - preferably a CLT.
OK, some will be locked into the local housing scheme, but arguably that's better than being locked into the private landlord scheme.
Are second home ... if life was fair, balanced, reasonable and we lived in warm, caring society then second home owners would be to blame. As we live in a greedy, selfish, self-obsessed - sorry - free market, of course they're not.
They are normal people behaving in an entirely legal manner. Most that I know get here as often as possible and spend a lot of money locally.
It would be even better if they committed full time.
'The political aim of council house sales was in part to create inherited wealth and bolster the tory vote and in that it has succeeded. The knock on costs were never discussed as you might expect.'
I agree with you. My only quibble is that New Labour used it for the same purpose, proving that some 'politicians' morality' is an oxymoron, with the same character traits as one engaging in the oldest profession. The flaw in this policy is that wages and salaries were supposed to rise in line with property prices. For the vast majority, they haven't - certainly not in Swanage if the average salary is really is 12-15k. That has hardly increased in the past ten years.
12-15k? According to my formula worked out in post 8.03 some way back, the average property price would be in the region of 100 k, give or take 10k.
Regarding covenants restricting the sale or purchase of homes in the private sector, I suspect a raft of lawsuits would challenge this - right up to Europe ('you get what you reap'!). I can see restrictive covenants on housing association properties, or on existing homes still owned by the public sector. For those already in the private sector, that horse has indeed left the barn.
Purely personally, I would support a swinging levy on unoccupied homes. It is morally wrong to leave these empty when many are waiting for homes. You cannot force private owners to let empty homes, but you can make it expensive for them to do so.
Don't worry too much about Covenants, I'm only talking about 'new build'. So long as we set up a CLT then we're covered, I just threw them in as a possible route as they're used by some Housing Assocs to get around 'right to acquire'.
Sorry, being a bit negative there, housing Assocs also use Covenants to ensure that only 'local people' can move into their properties.
PS
I don't want to start the old chestnut of: 'what is a local'? - it's been established by Local Councils and Housing Assocs.
It's easily accessible via Google etc.
Purely personally, I would support a swinging levy on unoccupied homes. It is morally wrong to leave these empty when many are waiting for homes. You cannot force private owners to let empty homes, but you can make it expensive for them to do so.
'A swinging levy' could you please explain without using the jargon. I agree that it is morally wrong to leave empty houses. Is a swinging levy different than Tax 200? or something similar. How would you suggest that these 'fines' 'taxes' 'swinging levvies' are used for local amenities? No point if the extra floats away into the statesphere !
Please could you explain what a CLT is ??
Thanks
I don't think anyone will quibble with having a high proportion of new housing ring fenced as outlined. PDC want to pitch it at 50% in Swanage. What you are not likely to get is exclusively public sector estates thank goodness apart from CLTs of course.
The weakness of PDC's draft strategy seems to be that they address housing demand solely in terms of demand from existing residents but we know that the market has to provide for sales to people moving here and second home owners. By failing to identify sufficient building land they will perpetuate a shortage situation and ensure that prices will remain high.
I take the point that new labour continued with a policy they had inherited but in 1979 challenging the aspirational Daily Mail vote head on was not something they were willing to contemplate. However, I think you will find that the "sweetener" offered to council house purchasers is not by any means what it used to be.
I have lived here for 20 years and have participated fully in the community, but there are still many who view 'us' as 'outsiders'. These denizons of Swanage tend to share one of several surnames among themselves - I put there xenophobic attitude toward 'newcomers' down to this fact! (Just kidding....)!
Community Land Trust
The community buy, rent or are given some land and then build on it. Houses can be rented or sold to whoever the CLT want.
As to weaknesses in PDC's policy all they've done so far is to ask the developers where they feel they want to build. The current consultation is asking us where we think there should be housing. It isn't PDC's job to say where there will be housing, until all parties have been consulted.
Strictly speaking an organisation is formed whose aim is to provide housing in a particular settlement. The "community" has no existence as a legal entity. The trust acts in what it regards as the best interests of the population of the place in question, and tries to have the largest numbers of supporters it can, but at the risk of being a frightful pedant. it acts for the community, it is not the community acting. Village land trust would be a better name.
We use the word community very loosely and as an earlier poster indicated, there is always a nasty suspicion that we are talking about people who identify themselves through a tie of blood rather than the happy coincidence of residing in proximity. Since in the present day people come and go a great deal and often reside in more than one location in the course of the year it is possible to be a member of more than one geographical community. If your daughter goes off to uni she is part of several communities although obviously the strength of the ties varies. Obviously within a settlement it is possible to identify "communities" with particular characteristics in common. Ethnic and sexual orientation "communities" for example so they can overlap in a particular location.
Sorry, I was using 'the Community' instead of 'the Community Land Trust'.
Yes, sorry for being pedantic but community is one of those warm cuddly words whose meaning turns out to be ambiguous, if not polymorphic. Couple it with vibrant and a red mist obscures my vision. So far as I can establish a vibrant community is one whose inhabitants have enough income to eat out a good deal rather than spend their money on booze and drugs consumed at home. Does anyone have a real definition?
'Houses can be rented or sold to whoever the CLT want.'
Are you certain? While they can allow/deny residency applications based on income, certain connections with Swanage, or certain needed job skills, I am certain it is illegal to bar anyone for race, religion, marital status, sexual orientation, age, number of children/dependents etc.....these are protected by many laws on the books.
As for someone having a real definition of community, weeellll, there seem to be thousands out there in the idiotweb community!
Until the CLT is set up I didn't want to be too definite on who'd be able to buy/rent.
Traditionally, and well established in law, you have to be local. nothing else matters.
This is getting more and more complicated as we go on. No wonder nothing is happening...the layers of beaurocracy deepen.
Rewind. Whilst local people have no home, it seems wrong for some to have two. It also seems wrong that land should be used to build more homes whilst many sit empty and are second homes. For a 'community, village, settlement' (whatever you wish to call it) to be sustainable, viable, possible, exist, (choose your word), it needs a percentage of people living in it full time. If the second home owners outnumber the full time residents, then community, village (whatever) there will not be enough people to maintain village/town life. The villages and town will die. They will become ghost towns. I have heard it said that people do not want to see housing development everywhere. It would not have to be everywhere if every house was used as a home and not as an investment.
We can either sit back and do nothing or keep trying to make this situation better. Who wants to live in a ghost town?
George Monbiot The Guardian, 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/23/comment.politics3
What greater source of injustice could there be, that while some people have no home, others have two? Yet the vampire trade in second homes keeps growing - by 3% a year - uninhibited by government or by the conscience of the buyers. Every purchase of a second house deprives someone else of a first one. But to speak out against it is to identify yourself as a killjoy and a prig.
If you travel to Worth Matravers - the chocolate-box village in Dorset in which 60% of the houses
are owned by ghosts - you will not find hordes of homeless people camping on the pavements in cardboard boxes. The market does not work like that. Young people from the village, unable to buy locally, have moved away, and contributed to the housing pressure somewhere else. The impacts of the ghost market might be invisible to the purchasers, but this does not mean they aren't real..
"Who wants to live in a ghost town?"
I thought the argument being made was that nobody will be living there so the question of living in a ghost town does not arise, however, it begs the counter question, what right do villages have to be kept alive? So what if Worth is abandoned to the second home owners? The problem of housing people whose earning capacity does not match our mad housing market is just the same everywhere. If the fields were not there between Purbeck's towns and villages and they were all suburbs of Poole would we hear the same argument? It applies just as much to those who live in Sandbanks and Canford Cliffs as Worth but nobody advocates a system of reservations for the natives there.
It's also the moral argument versus the actualite - sorry, I can never find the acute e.
Moral arguments are very easy cuz we live in such a morally bankrupt culture, but, and I think that there may be a generational issue here, most of us know what is right and what is wrong, but then we 'forget' when it benefits us.
Recently I bought a 23" monitor for my 'puter. Did I stop to question whether it was produced in a 'sweatshop' - no, did I worry about any airmiles - no.
Am I unique -no.
Do I shop in supermarkets - yes.
Does my 'local' greengrocer stock 'local' products - yes, when he can, if they're not available he stocks whatever from wherever.
Is it fair that locals can't buy locally - no, is anyone going to change that, hhmm, well, the Gov't aren't going to legislate against people being able to buy houses wheresoever they can, but the current round of consultation at least gives us a chance. Get your letters into PDC before the end of Nov suggesting where locals can build for locals.
People move about all the time. Home is where you rest your head. Someone may have parents from Kent and Yorkshire and have been brought up in Cornwall. If they need housing and happen to be here why should they be at a disadvantage compared with someone whose ancestors kept firmly off their bikes? The term "local" as it is often used implies that the latter constitute some sort of "herrenvolk" with rights not applicable to others. Of course applying a reductio ad absurdum, if modern families were willing to live in the conditions of over-crowding and poor housing their ancestors endured they would be able to pay so much rent that investing in property in Worth would be an attractive proposition to landlords. Those new houses where the craft centre was would take at least 30 each. The return per acre was always highest in slums you know.
The mobility myth!
Please go check the research, we are becoming less mobile.
As I've said before;
"PS
I don't want to start the old chestnut of: 'what is a local'? - it's been established by Local Councils and Housing Assocs.
It's easily accessible via Google etc".
That's our legally established starting point; yours ........
I'm not sure but you seem to support the free market, ah, well, never mind .....
"uninhibited by government or by the conscience of the buyers".
What about the sellers? These local people who care about their community so much that they don't sell to the highest bidder, who don't put houses up for more than the locals can afford? No they say my son or daughter will need a home locally one day I'll keep it for them instead of complaining that they cann't afford to buy one later. Try condeming them instead of blaming " the greed of 2nd home buyers".
Its not that I support the free market. Its what the electorate went for. If you recall, the last time any vaguely collectivist alternative was offered was in 1983 and trauma of the voters rejection of it is still there to be seen in Labour's policies. We live with the long term consequences of the victor's actions in subsequent years. Maybe we are getting what we deserve from making the wrong choice.
Sorry if my use of the Tebbit "on yer bike phrase" could be read meaning social mobility. I was thinking only of geographical mobility. It remains the case that if you went from being a farm labourer in Dorset to a semi-skilled industrial job in expanding areas of the midlands and south east in the 1930s you would be better off. No nonsense about reinventing yourself as a railway company director. No social mobility, simply a difference in pay rates.
Oh, I know!
That's what happens when you trust the voters!
Roll on me running the Country!
Are posters saying prices are high round here because of second home buyers but high in places they are not attracted to for a completely different reason? So they think there are two different explanations of the same thing? It does seem to me this is a case of starting off with an explanation and bending the facts to fit it, or simply ignoring them when they do not fit the hypothesis.
In a way, yeah.
But what matters is that if it's an area where people want to live then the prices are higher.
It also amuses me - in a dark and despairing kinda way - that everyone moans about our high levels of 2HOs and how the SW is suffering and totally ignores the fact that huge swathes of Norfolk are 30% 2HOs.
Purbeck 7%
2HO's are a useful scapegoat for the hard of thinking.
Yours, renting in Purbeck, love to buy, but y'know, I'd rather rent in somewhere I'm happy than buy in somewhere I wouldn't be!
Worth is 70% !
Most people care about where they live..other people care about where they live.
It also amuses me - in a dark and despairing kinda way - that everyone moans about our high levels of 2HOs and how the SW is suffering and totally ignores the fact that huge swathes of Norfolk are 30% 2HOs.
Oh like this for example.
http://www.richardbacon.org.uk/expenses/default.htm
Here is an alternative hypothesis. Cause and effect operate the other way round to what is assumed. Second home buyers choose the most expensive location they can thinking that price indicates quality. If somewhere is 20% dearer they will buy there. This is self reinforcing to an extent but basically if you have a few hundred thousand to spend you will go for somewhere where you can expect the best capital gain which will be the places where prices have risen most.
Here is a little snippet of Whitehall conversation:
Sir Humphrey has a nice little cottage in the Cotswolds and his son is thinking of buying somewhere at the seaside. The minister's pps has a love-nest in Brighton he would rather not discuss. The chances of workable legislation getting past this lot are debatable, over a glass of sherry at the club that is, but perhaps we can kick it into the long grass with a commission or a committee or some sort to look at it? How about one of those retired judges? It gets them out of our hair for a while.
This has been the liveliest thread ever in this blog!!
Talking to a friend from Spain yesterday and they say that there are masses of empty new properties that were built to attact second home owners. No one is taking up these apartments. The local people are suggesting that the properties are reduced to something that young working people can afford..but no, the properties continue to deteriorate, and are being broken into,just in the hope that the recession will come to an end. Have property prices come down at all in Purbeck??
My impression is that prices have fallen by pretty much the same proportion as elsewhere in the south but that motivated (i.e desperate) sellers are taking a hammering as you would expect. There are bargain hunters around but the level of activity is low.
Regarding second home buyers it makes very little difference if you are trying to sell to ones with a £400k budget or ones with a £300k budget. It simply means they get more for their money. Prices are still beyond the means of many local would be buyers, as they are in most attractive and hence expensive places.
If they fall locally compared with the rest of the south east all that happens is more second home buyers/retirees/commuters enter the market and of course they fall in part because the spending power of local would be buyers has fallen.
So what do we do? We live in an attractive place keeping house prices high.
But with lowly paid employment for local people. But we need the local people to maintain the services and attractiveness of this area! So what is considered as a priority the second home owners or the local people (those that wish to live here). Why should people that wish to live here be penalised because we live in an attractive area. Keeping the pubs going, emptying the rubbish, farming, quarrying and fishing, are these peoples lives not prioritised?
Why indeed and the same applies to all the low paid people who do essential work in places with expensive housing throughout the country not just here. They should indeed be a priority. A question though. Who should people in places where they don't have many second homeowners blame for their plight?
Oh for goodness sake I want to screeeeaaaaammmmm!
Just go build affordable housing and fill the second homes up.
Just dooooooo it !!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/6905453/Second-home-owners-force-schools-to-close.html
The Center for Media Research has released a study by Vertical Response that shows just where many of these ‘Main Street’ players are going with their online dollars. The big winners: e-mail and social media. With only 3.8% of small business folks NOT planning on using e-mail marketing and with social media carrying the perception of being free (which they so rudely discover it is far from free) this should make some in the banner and search crowd a little wary.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment