Solving Housing Demand-restict Ownership To Occupiers Only

[manxchatterbox]

how many of the new apartments are being bought by non-resident landlords who don't owner occupy leaving the property empty??

 

it would surely free up some property to satisfy the demand if the planners put a restriction on the developer that they could only sell to owner occupiers?

 

this sort of scheme is apparently up and working in Liverpool

 

see arrticle:-

Absentee landlords can expect flat refusal

By Jim Pickard, Property Correspondent

Published: July 24 2006 03:00 | Last updated: July 24 2006 03:00

 

The absentee landlord has become a defining feature of many northern cities, where new blocks of flats have been snapped up almost entirely by investors - often from abroad.

 

Now a project in Liverpool is to challenge this state of affairs by selling its flats only to owner-occupiers. Such a policy is more likely to create a sense of community than that of passing the apartments into the hands of buy-to-let investors.

[thebees]

It is a great idea.

[mojomonkey]

Finally, Manxchatterbox raises something that I'm genuinely interested in and largely agree with.

 

For what its worth, I can see no reason why additional dwellings should not be taxed or at least controlled in some manner. I’m aware that senior civil servants have raised the idea but understand that it’s the politicians who aren’t too keen on the idea. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions for their reluctance.

 

I simply don't accept the stance of some people who state that there is a housing shortage on the Island. Rather, I believe that the housing market is controlled by the wealthy investors to the detriment of those trying to get onto the housing ladder. The buy to let investors can only have a negative effect on this.

 

Having said that I do not believe that there is an automatic right to own a house. I think that you should be expected to have some form of deposit and need to realise that getting that takes time (I’ve only recently got my first mortgage after six years of saving). I also believe that many people are unrealistic in their expectations in getting a house. I’ve spoken to many people who really believe that their 18/19 year old kid should be able to buy a house, which is just daft.

[Karellen]

The buy to let investors can only have a negative effect on this....... I also believe that many people are unrealistic in their expectations in getting a house. I’ve spoken to many people who really believe that their 18/19 year old kid should be able to buy a house, which is just daft.

 

So where do the 18/19 year olds live if they are not able to buy a house? Possibly they rent from a buy to let investor?

[mojomonkey]

The buy to let investors can only have a negative effect on this....... I also believe that many people are unrealistic in their expectations in getting a house. I’ve spoken to many people who really believe that their 18/19 year old kid should be able to buy a house, which is just daft.

 

So where do the 18/19 year olds live if they are not able to buy a house? Possibly they rent from a buy to let investor?

 

Yes, they either stay at home or rent. I'm not saying there isn't a place for the rental market, I just think that those profitting from rent need taxing or controlling.

[Tugger]

I like the sentiment, I guess, but there would have to be some exceptions. If someone moves over here from England, they want to rent a home so that they can get a feel for the place before they buy. Who do they rent from?

[Karellen]

The buy to let investors can only have a negative effect on this....... I also believe that many people are unrealistic in their expectations in getting a house. I’ve spoken to many people who really believe that their 18/19 year old kid should be able to buy a house, which is just daft.

 

So where do the 18/19 year olds live if they are not able to buy a house? Possibly they rent from a buy to let investor?

 

Yes, they either stay at home or rent. I'm not saying there isn't a place for the rental market, I just think that those profitting from rent need taxing or controlling.

 

What is wrong with making a profit on an investment? That is what all business is about, and those profits are of course taxed.

 

Dont forget that we live in a free capitalist society, not a communist state.

[stookie]

What is wrong with making a profit on an investment? That is what all business is about, and those profits are of course taxed.

 

Dont forget that we live in a free capitalist society, not a communist state.

 

I don't believe there is any tax on an individual selling a property at a profit, but I may be wrong.

 

I think this is a good idea though I would prefer people to be taxed on their profits and then there can still be houses for rent.

 

I would also stop developers who obtain planning consent on the pretext of providing first time buyer houses from subsequently holding onto the properties as an investment and letting them out themselves, thus having more than one bite of the cherry by exercising further control over the supply of properties and thus prices.

 

Housing is a social issue and cannot be left entirely to capitalists to resolve. I agree we live in a free society that adopts a capitalist approach to its economy, but not a "free capitalist society", where anything would go presumably? Lets not forget the Island also has socialist principles (though not communist of course), in that the state does provide assistance, welfare, etc.

[Gladys]

Nobody, I think, minds anyone making a profit, it drives the economy that we are all dependent upon. However, I do think that the profit should not be divorced from the use of the underlying asset; in other words make a profit, fine, but the corollary is that someone else receives a benefit. Profit without a corollary benefit (other than to the person profiting) is not acceptable and damaging to the social structure, from which we all benefit.

 

Discuss.

[BigDave]

I would also stop developers who obtain planning consent on the pretext of providing first time buyer houses from subsequently holding onto the properties as an investment and letting them out themselves

This just doesn't happen. If a developer gets planning permission on the grounds that part of the development is first time buyer properties, those properties are built on behalf of DoLGE at near to cost price for supply via the first time buyer register. I've no doubt that the supply of homes for the first time buyer scheme is used by developers as a tool to persude planners, but in order to actually get anywhere they need to sign them over to the first time buyer scheme - just calling them first time buyer homes doesn't wash.

[stookie]

Just checked my post and I didn't refer to the "first time buyers scheme" so you shouldn't jump to conclusions. I was referring to (for example) Governors Hill where a builder makes out they're all saintly by addressing the social need of houses for first time buyers and then when built keeps a whole load on their own books and rents them out. Couldn't/didn't happen?

[BigDave]

Didn't say you did. I was merely pointing out that developers that manage to "obtain planning consent on the pretext of providing first time buyer houses" only get it by building approved dwellings on behalf of DoLGE, not simply by calling the houses "starter homes". It's the government's way of getting something out of the developers in exchange for a more lenient view on their planning application.

[LoneWolf]

Nobody, I think, minds anyone making a profit, it drives the economy that we are all dependent upon. However, I do think that the profit should not be divorced from the use of the underlying asset; in other words make a profit, fine, but the corollary is that someone else receives a benefit. Profit without a corollary benefit (other than to the person profiting) is not acceptable and damaging to the social structure, from which we all benefit.

Discuss.

 

Discuss indeed! Profit and Ethics might exists as opposite ends of a continuum?

In the case of rented housing it is difficult to argue other than returns on investment are much higher than

can really be justified by comparison with other financial vehicles.

The landlord makes a double return. First he or she benefits from ever rising house prices. Secondly he or she benefits from rental income. The dual return is comparable to that enjoyed by the worst sort of loan companies and is a great deal less risky.

At least one part of this profit is taken at the expense of the tenant who, bizarrely, is often paying more than he or she would have to pay on a mortgage for the property.

Empirical evidence seems to suggest this is a British problem. It certainly does not exist in Europe or the States.

[Gladys]

Yes, LW, agreed and accepted. But my point was that it is so easy to jump up and scream about profit without thinking the thing through. Profit is fine so long as a value has been delivered in return. This is not a new concept of 'business ethics' (although that does take the idea further forward), but has been acknowledged for a long time now in bodies such as the OFT and MMC whose main aim, put fundamentally, is to ensure that profit is fair.

[LoneWolf]

Yes, LW, agreed and accepted. But my point was that it is so easy to jump up and scream about profit without thinking the thing through. Profit is fine so long as a value has been delivered in return. This is not a new concept of 'business ethics' (although that does take the idea further forward), but has been acknowledged for a long time now in bodies such as the OFT and MMC whose main aim, put fundamentally, is to ensure that profit is fair.

 

and in the case of profit from renting .......... it is not only excessive but patently unfair.