Cast_Iron wrote:
"MrBitsy" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article ,
says...

The world is full of people who would rather live in a/the house
they can't afford to buy.

This applies to people living and working in a rural community.
People like agricultural workers.

How about moving somewhere where they can afford to buy - the rest
of us have to do it.

I write software but can't afford to buy a new house in the town I
live. Do I have a reasonable gripe against someone that moved out of
London or should I just move where I can afford a property?

Who are 'agricultural workers' to get special treatment?


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.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?
--
MrBitsy

"MrBitsy" wrote the following in:


Cast_Iron wrote:
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.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?

Doesn't this all get a bit ridiculous? People living in cities buy a
second home in the country which they travel long distances to and
from. This forces other people to buy houses far away from where they
work and so they end up travelling long distances to and from work.
They're living in a house that is close to someone else's place of work
and so rather than living there that person has to buy a house where
they can afford to and they have to travel long distances to and from
work.

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.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

"Robin May" wrote in message
.4...
"MrBitsy" wrote the following in:


Cast_Iron wrote:
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.

What, you mean the poor dears might have to travel to work?

Doesn't this all get a bit ridiculous? People living in cities buy a
second home in the country which they travel long distances to and
from. This forces other people to buy houses far away from where they
work and so they end up travelling long distances to and from work.
They're living in a house that is close to someone else's place of work
and so rather than living there that person has to buy a house where
they can afford to and they have to travel long distances to and from
work.

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.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

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.



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.

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 20:07:40 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


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.

What are you wittering on about ?

Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that area?


If you had a point you would have made it by now.


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.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:07:40 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


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.

What are you wittering on about ?

Are you suggesting that there are open fields within that
area?


If you had a point you would have made it by now.



If you can't understand your own posts and responses to them I suggest you
go to school and learn.

wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

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?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles (probably not
a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway interchange).

So what are you talking about?

"JNugent" wrote the following
in:

wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

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?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway
interchange).

You'll have to travel a fair distance from Charing Cross before you can
do anything more than 30mph and even that is pretty ambitious as an
average speed, especially considering the fact that you'll face
congestion and a lot of traffic lights. I'd be absolutely amazed if you
could travel as much as 60 miles. Even half that seems optimistic.

So what are you talking about?

More to the point, what are you talking about?

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

"Handlebar catch and nipple."

JNugent wrote:
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:

[ ... ]

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?

A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60
miles (probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent
to a motorway interchange).

So what are you talking about?

Try the last line of Greg Hennessy's post. Ten mile west of Charing Cross
doesn't even get you to Southall. travelling for the same distance in any
other direction is still well within the London conurbation.