Clive George wrote:
"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Given the that the increased road congestion in Friday and Sunday
evenings is caused by many people going and from to their country
cottages for the weekend, isn't it time that second homes attracted
a punative rate of council tax?

Less controversially, isn't it time that second homes attracted the
normal (ie non-discount) rate of council tax?

Yes.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:52:32 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


I have never seen anything in any part of any of the
contracts which said or implied that I was under any
obligation to do anything towards "solve housing
shortages" [sic], or to "make contribution to the local
economy" - or even that I had to live in the property
being purchased.

Has property law changed in the last tweve years?



Ah at last, the standard "**** you Jack, I'm OK" attitude.


No, the standard f*ck you and your bleeding heart socialist
bilge.



Yawn

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

... agricultural workers.

The people who grow the food that you and the rest of us
eat and
who would have difficulty doing that job in the middle
of a large conurbation, for example.

There was a lot to be said for the concept of the tied
cottage, of course (a bit like armed forces' married
quarters, or even like nos. 10 & 11 Downing Street).

But the chatterati were dead against tied cottages...

It was Maggie and co that forced an end to tied housing.

Sheer, biased, blinkered, knee-jerk, nonsense.

The tied cottage was being "phased out" (pilloried as a
social anachronism) decades before 1979.

S'funny, that.

Had the tied cottages remained in their original use,
there'd be less need for hand-wringing over the housing
fate of agricultural workers, wouldn't there?

I didn't say it wasn't on the way out, I merely made the point that Thatcher
forced it to end. A subtle but distinct difference that is obviously lost on
you.

Less controversially, isn't it time that second homes attracted the normal
(ie non-discount) rate of council tax?

only if occupied - as council tax is meant to pay for services and an empty
house requires exactly none. You should be forced to declare how much time
you spend in the houses and pay pro-rata, and if you rent the second home
out at all it should attract full rate.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:26:20 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:


Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses
in such areas?

Try the nationalised planning system courtesy of the town
and country planning act 1947.

A spiteful piece of legislation whose only purpose was to
outlaw the mechanism by which 1.5+ million privately built,
financed and *affordable* houses in the 20s and 30s.
Couldn't have that doncha know.

It not an 'efficient use of resources' (sic), you have to
keep them poor and dependent so they'll keep voting
socialist.

Nimbies and bananas also love it as it' a morass of
centrally planned bureaucratic process which can be
exploited to frustrate obtaining the necessary consent.

The T5 public inquiry or taking 8 years to put a 2nd runway
at Stansted are prime cases in point.


The main problem is the lack of supply that is driving up
the prices.

If you were to believe the CPRE, the SE is currently like
downtown Hong Hong during the rush hour, when the reality
is that approximately 15% of the land within 1 hours
commute of charring cross is built on.


A one hour commute by your favoured mode is only about ten miles at most.
Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that area?

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:40:57 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:



errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is greed.


Only an emoting naif could utter such nonsense.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is greed.

Correct - if the banks can't make money by high interest rates they'll do it
by smaller rates on bigger loans!

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...


I buy a second house. I won't be spending much time there,

Then why bother, why not simply stay in holiday accommodation and contribute
to the local economy? Plus it may well work out cheaper.

so, as I won't have time to do the decorating myself, that,
along with a few repairs, have to be done by a local
builder.

If only everyone did that, but there are many who will use a tradesman from
their own area, "because they know him". No gain to the local economy.

I'm not moving an existing house, so all the
furniture, tv, hi-fi, video etc, have to be bought locally.

On the contrary, they can be bought anywhere. Where do you suppose a
permanent local resident buys their furniture etc? Some holiday home owners
when setting up simply move their existing furniture from their permanent
home to the holiday cottage and renew from suppliers in their area. No gain
to the local economy.


How many years' food shopping will a permanent resident
have to do to put the same amount of money into the local
economy?

Many holiday home owners simply take food from their permanent home's
nearest supermarket. No gain to the local economy.

Then, of course, there are the ongoing costs. I
will need both a gardener and someone to clean the house,
if I want to prevent things getting out of hand while I am
away. That is without even spending any time at the house.

That's your way of doing things, not everyone is quite so houseproud or they
will send someone they know.

But the net result is that buying a holiday home is depriving someone else
of a permanent home.

Stimpy wrote:

It worked fine for some of us thank you very much

(age 42 and semi-retired)

The current fashionable theory always works for someone, good for you.

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...
Mikael Armstrong wrote:
"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
Living many miles away from where you work and having to
travel a long distance to get there is something that
should be discouraged. Not encouraged so that the rich can
buy another castle and leave it empty for most of the year.

Very true, so why not let people build a few more houses in
such areas? The main problem is the lack of supply that is
driving up the prices.

errrr, no. The only thing driving up house prices is greed.

So why do we not have the same situation with cars? Cars themselves can be
bought for less now than ever in real terms. This is due to the fact that
there is far greater supply so people buying cars can shop around for a good
deal. The laws of supply and demand will always work things out, and in the
housing market, the market is artificially being held high by restricting
supply.

Mikael