It's maddening that property owners can vote against new construction, when they have a deep conflict of interest. The community may require housing, but the homeowner has an interest in seeing housing prices go up forever.
It's similar to this ridiculous notion that expensive housing is a good thing. We give absurd tax breaks to homeowners (why can't I deduct the lost interest on my rent?), and people lament falling house prices, as though homelessness were desirable.
Couple all that with building codes that make it illegal to build modest (small with no parking) housing, and you have a situation where it's impossible for most people to live in a city.
The above issues don't apply everywhere. London, thankfully, isn't dumb enough to go for parking minimums, and doesn't offer a tax deduction on mortgage interest. The general forces at play (landed incumbents voting to screw over the young) are much the same, though.
What? London is full of new housing under construction. Many of the flats will be tiny as well. The problem (for those trying to live in the city) is that the houses will be hugely expensive.
For London in particular, the problem is that there are too many people who want to own a house there. That's why the prices are high. You can't call the place underdeveloped, it's not a lack of supply due to regulations.
If you want the prices to be lower, you need to reduce the demand.
It's a matter of perspective. On the one hand you're right that it's sheer demand that is a big part of the problem in London. On the other hand it is obvious that everywhere in the UK has serious restriction of supply, because house building has been less than half of what's necessary for many decades, house prices are spiralling, and median house price to income ratios are double now what they were 15 years ago (again, that applies to all parts of the country, even unfashionable places far away from the capital [1]).
Obviously there's the issue with green belts, but even beyond that there's massive potential for increasing the housing density of outer London. Both because of its current low density, and because a lot of the existing housing stock is made up of grey suburban estates which would be more or less unmourned if redeveloped. Look up 'densification' for more information.
Also, of course, it is important to try to reduce demand by making the Northern cities an alternative centre of gravity (HS2, HS3, new local powers for unified city mayors in Manchester and Birmingham, and so on).
As I understand it, the problem is that new construction is outstripped by increasing demand. Hence the increasing prices. I read an article in The Economist's recent suburbs/cities issue where they said a lot of the problem lies in how people are prevented from developing the green belt.
I don't know. I know a few people who live in green belt areas and commute every day to work in central London. Clearly, in some sense, London doesn't end there; and it drives up costs for them and many others. At the same time, I agree that it would be terrible to lose all the countryside vaguely near London.
Perhaps your top-level comment was right: London has just reached capacity. But I'm not convinced of that, either; there are plenty of bigger megacities.
Nobody claims democracy is perfect, but on the other hand, deciding that democracy is broken because it doesn't return the result you like is a special kind of arrogant.
When you require a large number of people to adjust their behaviour to suit your interest, significant measures of patience and modesty are admirable traits.
Whoa, whoa - that's not quite what they were saying, I think - and they were opposing me! I was referring to areas which are composed primarily of homeowners voting in ways that prevent other people from living there. There's also the fact that homeowners are more likely to be able to vote due to the greater likelihood of being citizens.
Something like 40% of London residents are foreign-born. Interestingly, I'm a foreigner in Dublin, but I'm allowed to vote in local elections after living here for a year.
Most of the planning policy that affects the current housing shortage (along with most things in the UK, really) is decided nationally, so I'm going to have to go with "yes".
But ask yourself this: Given where you live now, how do you feel about people who don't live where you do deciding what should happen where you live, because it would suit them (not you) better?
Most of the planning policy that affects the current housing shortage (along with most things in the UK, really) is decided nationally, so I'm going to have to go with "yes".
Fair enough, could be a local ordinance (I'm not from the UK).
But ask yourself this: Given where you live now, how do you feel about people who don't live where you do deciding what should happen where you live, because it would suit them (not you) better?
I think "how would you feel" arguments are generally poor - biased people make selfish choices, and I'm not immune to it.
That said, I'm not saying that outsiders should be able to choose; you made a comment about it being democratic, and I was curious if it was true. I don't consider a system where only the incumbents would be allowed to vote as "democratic" - even if I could consider it better than a democratic system.
The lack of reasonable property tax is a big part of pushing valuations into the stratosphere. Look at the outrage over the "mansion tax", for example, which would only apply to million-pound homes.
Apparently socialist New York has a 1.8% property tax? Edit: Austin, Texas has 3% property tax! If you tried that in the UK you'd be denounced as a Communist.
It's similar to this ridiculous notion that expensive housing is a good thing. We give absurd tax breaks to homeowners (why can't I deduct the lost interest on my rent?), and people lament falling house prices, as though homelessness were desirable.
Couple all that with building codes that make it illegal to build modest (small with no parking) housing, and you have a situation where it's impossible for most people to live in a city.
The above issues don't apply everywhere. London, thankfully, isn't dumb enough to go for parking minimums, and doesn't offer a tax deduction on mortgage interest. The general forces at play (landed incumbents voting to screw over the young) are much the same, though.