The ArgusThe place yuppies want to live? It's Hove, actually. (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Hove is the most popular place for young professionals to buy a new home

The Argus: The place yuppies want to live? It's Hove, actually. The place yuppies want to live? It's Hove, actually.

Hove has become the most popular place outside of London for a new wave of young professionals looking to buy a home, according to a new report.

Nearly 1,000 homes in Hove were bought by London-based house-hunters last year.

Hundreds more homes were snapped up in Brighton by 25 to 44-year-old workers in the capital over the same 12 month period.

An estate agent, councillors and Hove’s MP said the stats showed what a draw Brighton and Hove was as a place to relocate to but warned the influx impacted on born-and-bred residents also looking to get on the property ladder.

The BN3 postcode in Hove had the largest number of property sales to young London workers outside of the capital while BN1 Brighton was not far behind at ninth in the figures compiled by Lloyds Bank and based on figures obtained from the Land Registry.

But while areas of Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham and Newcastle have seen wealthy capital workers gazumping local residents by paying up to 63% more than the average house price, in Hove buyers were finding bargains 11% below the average price tag.

Estate agent Phil Graves, of Graves Jenkins, said: “Why wouldn’t young professionals want to come to Brighton and Hove?

“It is a fantastic place to live especially when we have beautiful weather like it is at the moment.

“Is it a case that they outbid local people? Probably not.

“Anybody with cash is prepared to outbid someone else if it’s the right property. I don’t think that is exclusive to yuppies. Any estate agent worth his salt works exclusively and individually for their vendor. 

“We sell to the most appropriate bidder who can meet the contract, and that is usually the highest bidder, whether that is a local buyer, a yuppy, a European buyer or someone from
further overseas.”

Green councillor Bill Randall, chairman of Brighton and Hove City Council’s housing committee, said: “The mass movement of yuppies to Hove and Brighton confirms the fact that our city is a fantastic place to live and raise a family.

“However, the newcomers’ arrival puts an even greater strain on our limited housing resources, fuels houseprice inflation and prices many sons and daughters of the city out of the housing market.

"It is critically important that the council should be able to provide more and affordable homes for local people and the government should answer our pleas and allow us to borrow more to build more homes and create more jobs and apprenticeships.”

Graham Cox Conservative councillor for the Westbourne ward in Hove said: “There is no way practical way to stop this. The only answer to the housing crisis is to build more.

“We do need to have the courage to give permission for new homes.

“We want to have a mix of young and old in Hove. People from London come down, open shops and run great restaurants. We wouldn’t want to lose that.”

Hove MP Mike Weatherley said: “It is, of course, better that we continue to be an attractive area for those not living here but whether or not we can accommodate many more people is
the question.”

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:18am Sat 17 May 14

lindaf says...

Yuppies? Can't remember the last time I heard that word...a bit 80s isn't it?
Yuppies? Can't remember the last time I heard that word...a bit 80s isn't it? lindaf
  • Score: 22

9:45am Sat 17 May 14

mark by the sea says...

So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets!
Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs!
So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets! Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs! mark by the sea
  • Score: 21

9:53am Sat 17 May 14

worthingite says...

lindaf wrote:
Yuppies? Can't remember the last time I heard that word...a bit 80s isn't it?
So is the Argus, thats why nobody buys it!
[quote][p][bold]lindaf[/bold] wrote: Yuppies? Can't remember the last time I heard that word...a bit 80s isn't it?[/p][/quote]So is the Argus, thats why nobody buys it! worthingite
  • Score: 17

10:03am Sat 17 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Although Bill Randall is an avuncular chap, he his a useless housing strategist and often gives ludicrous sound bites.
Last week he was celebrating more than 1500 homes in the city being turned into student bedsits failing to realise that they don't pay council tax and these houses are often neglected if they remain as crash pad housing for many years, only basic repairs are ever carried out and also communities look run down with rubbish strewn about and gardens neglected. We have 9,000 more students arriving all using services with no investment in supporting infrastructure and none paying council tax. He thinks that's a good idea? Weird.
Then we have the shipping containers being rented to the homeless at £650 a month, which equates to £1950 a month for three people when a house can be rented at just over a grand. Another scheme pushing up house prices, shoving the poor into trashy accommodation and ripping off the tax payer.
The real threat to the city is the number of families leaving. Young families spend and make significant life purchases. Students and non workers borrow to spend and also do not make significant purchase such as white goods etc.
Mr Randall think before you speak or master your subject.
Although Bill Randall is an avuncular chap, he his a useless housing strategist and often gives ludicrous sound bites. Last week he was celebrating more than 1500 homes in the city being turned into student bedsits failing to realise that they don't pay council tax and these houses are often neglected if they remain as crash pad housing for many years, only basic repairs are ever carried out and also communities look run down with rubbish strewn about and gardens neglected. We have 9,000 more students arriving all using services with no investment in supporting infrastructure and none paying council tax. He thinks that's a good idea? Weird. Then we have the shipping containers being rented to the homeless at £650 a month, which equates to £1950 a month for three people when a house can be rented at just over a grand. Another scheme pushing up house prices, shoving the poor into trashy accommodation and ripping off the tax payer. The real threat to the city is the number of families leaving. Young families spend and make significant life purchases. Students and non workers borrow to spend and also do not make significant purchase such as white goods etc. Mr Randall think before you speak or master your subject. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 46

10:11am Sat 17 May 14

her professional says...

mark by the sea wrote:
So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets!
Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs!
Not what he said at all, read it.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets! Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs![/p][/quote]Not what he said at all, read it. her professional
  • Score: -10

10:33am Sat 17 May 14

downbythesea says...

It always makes me laugh when I hear the nonsense spouted about "local housing", yes houses here are expensive, and yes the crappy government / local councils don't build enough shared equity or council housing, but......

Have you ever thought the reason that house prices are so high is in large part down to LOCAL PEOPLE SELLING THEIR HOUSES AT THE HIGHEST PRICE, TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER!

If people were really that altruistic, they could sell at a reasonable price, say 4 times average salary, and put a covenant on the property saying that it can only be sold on after by the new owner at say 4 times the average salary.

Problem solved. But in THE REAL WORLD, that will never happen as ALL people (with a few exceptions) what the most they can get for their house.

I bet this survey never took into account that the so called "yuppies" working in London, actually probably rented property here, or came from Brighton and had to WORK in London to get a decent salary.

Total nonsense report.
It always makes me laugh when I hear the nonsense spouted about "local housing", yes houses here are expensive, and yes the crappy government / local councils don't build enough shared equity or council housing, but...... Have you ever thought the reason that house prices are so high is in large part down to LOCAL PEOPLE SELLING THEIR HOUSES AT THE HIGHEST PRICE, TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! If people were really that altruistic, they could sell at a reasonable price, say 4 times average salary, and put a covenant on the property saying that it can only be sold on after by the new owner at say 4 times the average salary. Problem solved. But in THE REAL WORLD, that will never happen as ALL people (with a few exceptions) what the most they can get for their house. I bet this survey never took into account that the so called "yuppies" working in London, actually probably rented property here, or came from Brighton and had to WORK in London to get a decent salary. Total nonsense report. downbythesea
  • Score: 12

10:43am Sat 17 May 14

NickBtn says...

We need more new flats and houses or prices will continue to rocket. There are many brownfield sites in Brighton and Hove that could be used. However the council (of all flavours but particularly the greens) block their development. Mr KitKat was quoted as opposing turning unused office accommodation to residential despite our glut of unsuitable/long term unused office space. Yes, there does need to be some limits and balance but the council blocks just about everything and so house purchase and rental prices keep going up and unused space is wasted
We need more new flats and houses or prices will continue to rocket. There are many brownfield sites in Brighton and Hove that could be used. However the council (of all flavours but particularly the greens) block their development. Mr KitKat was quoted as opposing turning unused office accommodation to residential despite our glut of unsuitable/long term unused office space. Yes, there does need to be some limits and balance but the council blocks just about everything and so house purchase and rental prices keep going up and unused space is wasted NickBtn
  • Score: 14

11:05am Sat 17 May 14

Hove Actually says...

“Is it a case that they outbid local people? Probably not.

AND THEN HE SAID

“We sell to the most appropriate bidder who can meet the contract, and that is usually the highest bidder

Both statements cannot be true....unless your an estate agent maybe
“Is it a case that they outbid local people? Probably not. AND THEN HE SAID “We sell to the most appropriate bidder who can meet the contract, and that is usually the highest bidder Both statements cannot be true....unless your an estate agent maybe Hove Actually
  • Score: 13

11:29am Sat 17 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

As a late 1980's refugee from London myself, I have a view.

The answer is NOT to build more housing (in Brighton & Hove). The influx of people from London these days is all about the outrageous housing inflation in London & perceived need by foreign buyers to have it as a place to park their money (creating London housing as a reserve currency, as was notably said in a New York Times article reprinted by the Guardian a while back). Indeed newbuild blocks of flats are offered abroad before here and 70% of London newbuilds are bought by foreigners now. That is insane. Much of it is just held, not lived in.

Londoners today who already own property, want to start a family, or perhaps lose their jobs, or think they want out, can cash in their chips at a mighty, capital-gains-free profit, move down here, buy for cash and have money left over. And commute back. And of course they are pushing prices here.

Renting in central London in the late sixties, early seventes was spacious and affordable (unmodernised, unheated) but is now 'modernised' to the hilt by the yuppies from the 1980's on and is for the rich and that is wrong. Something needs to be done about that roulette wheel property 'development' culture up there.

When I came down in the late 1980's (where several relatives had lived) it was because renters were being pushed out by a massive developer thing happening in London and I could no longer afford to live there. As London's creature where to go? London creates its own and the closest match to what I was used to and felt was indispensable was Brighton (though choosing to live in Hove which felt more like London, housing wise, to my friends and myself).

Back then, no self-respecting Brighton trendy would have set foot in Hove and it was considered to be beyond the pale and where the elderly lived. A hairdresser I went to said Hove was "social death".

It is not surprising that it has become a little London. The white terraced housing either side of Sackville Road down to Stirling Place to the east and Portland Road to the west is very Fulham Road. A lot of the terraced housing here is very London. I have watched Poet's corner morph from being full of elderly people to now being full of young families.

The London I still miss no longer exists. The likes of Roman Abramovitch have made Sloane St. shops into emporiums of bling with bouncers on the door, for instance. And like the Brighton born & bred who resent losing their town to incomers, I feel a bit like that about London. I understand their angst. All the things I used to excitedly daytrip down to North Laine for are long gone,

I blame Margaret Thatcher for having created property churn, the culture of greed and instability, for making renting 'infradig' and some kind of marker of inferiority and more expensive than buying property. Indeed this is a major motivator for people getting into mortgage debt. To escape the hideously cruel, ruthlessly exploitative, rental market.

Property trading was cynically encouraged as a way of getting past the economic troubles of the 1970's. Look where it has taken us....streets teaming with dispossessed normal people who cannot afford to live with a roof over their heads.

Who has the political will to put a stop to this casino madness where property is concerned? And to stop evading that issue by just saying we need to build more housing (for the rich to seize and use to make even more money for themselves). And who has the political will to make all parts of Britain equally viable, economically so people don't feel forced to leave and come down to the south to have a life? Please don't tell me UKIP will do it. Because I don't believe it.
As a late 1980's refugee from London myself, I have a view. The answer is NOT to build more housing (in Brighton & Hove). The influx of people from London these days is all about the outrageous housing inflation in London & perceived need by foreign buyers to have it as a place to park their money (creating London housing as a reserve currency, as was notably said in a New York Times article reprinted by the Guardian a while back). Indeed newbuild blocks of flats are offered abroad before here and 70% of London newbuilds are bought by foreigners now. That is insane. Much of it is just held, not lived in. Londoners today who already own property, want to start a family, or perhaps lose their jobs, or think they want out, can cash in their chips at a mighty, capital-gains-free profit, move down here, buy for cash and have money left over. And commute back. And of course they are pushing prices here. Renting in central London in the late sixties, early seventes was spacious and affordable (unmodernised, unheated) but is now 'modernised' to the hilt by the yuppies from the 1980's on and is for the rich and that is wrong. Something needs to be done about that roulette wheel property 'development' culture up there. When I came down in the late 1980's (where several relatives had lived) it was because renters were being pushed out by a massive developer thing happening in London and I could no longer afford to live there. As London's creature where to go? London creates its own and the closest match to what I was used to and felt was indispensable was Brighton (though choosing to live in Hove which felt more like London, housing wise, to my friends and myself). Back then, no self-respecting Brighton trendy would have set foot in Hove and it was considered to be beyond the pale and where the elderly lived. A hairdresser I went to said Hove was "social death". It is not surprising that it has become a little London. The white terraced housing either side of Sackville Road down to Stirling Place to the east and Portland Road to the west is very Fulham Road. A lot of the terraced housing here is very London. I have watched Poet's corner morph from being full of elderly people to now being full of young families. The London I still miss no longer exists. The likes of Roman Abramovitch have made Sloane St. shops into emporiums of bling with bouncers on the door, for instance. And like the Brighton born & bred who resent losing their town to incomers, I feel a bit like that about London. I understand their angst. All the things I used to excitedly daytrip down to North Laine for are long gone, I blame Margaret Thatcher for having created property churn, the culture of greed and instability, for making renting 'infradig' and some kind of marker of inferiority and more expensive than buying property. Indeed this is a major motivator for people getting into mortgage debt. To escape the hideously cruel, ruthlessly exploitative, rental market. Property trading was cynically encouraged as a way of getting past the economic troubles of the 1970's. Look where it has taken us....streets teaming with dispossessed normal people who cannot afford to live with a roof over their heads. Who has the political will to put a stop to this casino madness where property is concerned? And to stop evading that issue by just saying we need to build more housing (for the rich to seize and use to make even more money for themselves). And who has the political will to make all parts of Britain equally viable, economically so people don't feel forced to leave and come down to the south to have a life? Please don't tell me UKIP will do it. Because I don't believe it. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 35

11:35am Sat 17 May 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home.
Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.
My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home. Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 28

11:36am Sat 17 May 14

clubrob6 says...

This is one of the factors why there are now 16000+ people on Brighton and Hove's housing waiting list.B&H born and bred residents are struggling to find accommodation,to make it fair to genuine locals the local connection should be put upto ten years rather than the two year it is now.Not so long ago even the local connection did not exist.I hope we don't become like London where true locals now don't exist in many area's.On my street a ground floor flat just got sold for £800000 its got everything you could want even a garden but I noticed in the estate agents ad that it did not mention there is a hotel beer garden that can be quite noisy well into the early hours that backs onto it.I really feel sorry for locals in B&H that are being priced out by outsiders and a council that does not give them priority on the social/housing association list.
This is one of the factors why there are now 16000+ people on Brighton and Hove's housing waiting list.B&H born and bred residents are struggling to find accommodation,to make it fair to genuine locals the local connection should be put upto ten years rather than the two year it is now.Not so long ago even the local connection did not exist.I hope we don't become like London where true locals now don't exist in many area's.On my street a ground floor flat just got sold for £800000 its got everything you could want even a garden but I noticed in the estate agents ad that it did not mention there is a hotel beer garden that can be quite noisy well into the early hours that backs onto it.I really feel sorry for locals in B&H that are being priced out by outsiders and a council that does not give them priority on the social/housing association list. clubrob6
  • Score: 16

12:58pm Sat 17 May 14

homewood says...

King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.
King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help. homewood
  • Score: 17

1:02pm Sat 17 May 14

HJarrs says...

The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver.

Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.
The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver. Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better. HJarrs
  • Score: 4

1:26pm Sat 17 May 14

tom servo says...

Well done Argus.... I see you read the Mirror yesterday.
http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/top
-10-yuppie-hotspots-
uk-3551740
Well done Argus.... I see you read the Mirror yesterday. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/top -10-yuppie-hotspots- uk-3551740 tom servo
  • Score: 4

1:34pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home.
Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.
I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home. Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.[/p][/quote]I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell. KarenT
  • Score: 6

1:47pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

One of the big problems with "building new homes" in B&H is, ironically, part of the draw for people outside of B&H (especially Londoners) to come and live here... all the grade listed and period buildings. You can't even touch so much of B&H, there are so many protected buildings. And it's so congested too. I read somewhere once that Brunswick in Hove is the most congested residential area in the UK! All those Georgian houses that have been converted into flats, some of which are tiny. One of the houses in my road, which was once a single family home, has 16 flats in it now! It's like a Victorian lodging house. Anyway my point being, there is no room for expansion here, or at least very little, and building guidelines are so strict. This is one factor that makes prices go up so high and makes the area so desirable. No looming council estate towers or 'ugly new builds'. People like living somewhere where all they can see are white Georgian houses set in beautiful squares full of flowers and trees, and they will pay a premium for that. What, in all honesty, can you do? And this "no homes for local people" claptrap. People move, people have to move. I was once a Londoner who moved to Brighton because I couldn't afford to live there anymore. And now, I shall most likely sell up in the next year and move further east to Hastings or Bexhill. You get so much more for your money, and I simply can't afford to live here in the way I would like anymore. You just have to move, and then dodgy areas gentrify, gradually, like much of London has over the past 10 years (Hackney used to be one big slum - now it's very expensive and sought after). You go where you can afford a life. It's probably been that way since the Romans! Of course there are becoming fewer and fewer places to spill over into as our population grows - but then that's a different problem. Enforced sterilisation! Haven't used that one in a while! :D
One of the big problems with "building new homes" in B&H is, ironically, part of the draw for people outside of B&H (especially Londoners) to come and live here... all the grade listed and period buildings. You can't even touch so much of B&H, there are so many protected buildings. And it's so congested too. I read somewhere once that Brunswick in Hove is the most congested residential area in the UK! All those Georgian houses that have been converted into flats, some of which are tiny. One of the houses in my road, which was once a single family home, has 16 flats in it now! It's like a Victorian lodging house. Anyway my point being, there is no room for expansion here, or at least very little, and building guidelines are so strict. This is one factor that makes prices go up so high and makes the area so desirable. No looming council estate towers or 'ugly new builds'. People like living somewhere where all they can see are white Georgian houses set in beautiful squares full of flowers and trees, and they will pay a premium for that. What, in all honesty, can you do? And this "no homes for local people" claptrap. People move, people have to move. I was once a Londoner who moved to Brighton because I couldn't afford to live there anymore. And now, I shall most likely sell up in the next year and move further east to Hastings or Bexhill. You get so much more for your money, and I simply can't afford to live here in the way I would like anymore. You just have to move, and then dodgy areas gentrify, gradually, like much of London has over the past 10 years (Hackney used to be one big slum - now it's very expensive and sought after). You go where you can afford a life. It's probably been that way since the Romans! Of course there are becoming fewer and fewer places to spill over into as our population grows - but then that's a different problem. Enforced sterilisation! Haven't used that one in a while! :D KarenT
  • Score: 10

2:38pm Sat 17 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

KarenT wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home.
Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.
I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.
If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home. Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.[/p][/quote]I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.[/p][/quote]If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter! Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 7

2:40pm Sat 17 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

HJarrs wrote:
The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver.

Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.
You willing to put a profit-free covenant on your property to prevent it contributing to house price inflation and capital gains free profiteering?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver. Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.[/p][/quote]You willing to put a profit-free covenant on your property to prevent it contributing to house price inflation and capital gains free profiteering? Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 4

2:45pm Sat 17 May 14

wippasnapper says...

It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.
It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher. wippasnapper
  • Score: -4

2:55pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home.
Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.
I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.
If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter!
Never mind cllrs, ANYONE for that matter. People generally want to get top dollar (or pound!) when they sell their property. Often because where they want to move to will be a lot more expensive than it once was. It's not about 'greed', it's about the human nature to desire 'abundance', and abundance generally makes life a lot more interesting, and everyone wants to have as much fun and fulfilment as they can whilst they're still alive and kicking. No one is as happy as they could be living in a bedsit and eating baked beans every night. It's also completely different for many elderly people at the end of their lives - as they say "you can't take it with you", so it's much easier to be more generous at the end of your life. The greatest charitable bequests occur in the form of wills - people who their entire lives haven't been able to afford to be charitable suddenly leave their entire estates to Oxfam or a donkey sanctuary. The second biggest charitable donations come from extremely rich people (like Bill Gates for example), who have so much money they don't know what to do with it and become philanthropists. If it weren't for rich philanthropists (and death bequests), I suspect most charities would go bankrupt, and the world would be a far uglier and ruthless place indeed. Capitalism and the pursuit of wealth needn't and shouldn't be seen as some evil and self-centred preoccupation, like it often is amongst those who are just plain po'd that it ain't them!
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home. Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.[/p][/quote]I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.[/p][/quote]If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter![/p][/quote]Never mind cllrs, ANYONE for that matter. People generally want to get top dollar (or pound!) when they sell their property. Often because where they want to move to will be a lot more expensive than it once was. It's not about 'greed', it's about the human nature to desire 'abundance', and abundance generally makes life a lot more interesting, and everyone wants to have as much fun and fulfilment as they can whilst they're still alive and kicking. No one is as happy as they could be living in a bedsit and eating baked beans every night. It's also completely different for many elderly people at the end of their lives - as they say "you can't take it with you", so it's much easier to be more generous at the end of your life. The greatest charitable bequests occur in the form of wills - people who their entire lives haven't been able to afford to be charitable suddenly leave their entire estates to Oxfam or a donkey sanctuary. The second biggest charitable donations come from extremely rich people (like Bill Gates for example), who have so much money they don't know what to do with it and become philanthropists. If it weren't for rich philanthropists (and death bequests), I suspect most charities would go bankrupt, and the world would be a far uglier and ruthless place indeed. Capitalism and the pursuit of wealth needn't and shouldn't be seen as some evil and self-centred preoccupation, like it often is amongst those who are just plain po'd that it ain't them! KarenT
  • Score: 1

3:03pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

wippasnapper wrote:
It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.
Sorry, don't mean to be condescending, but is your spelling really that bad or are you just pretending for a laugh?
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.[/p][/quote]Sorry, don't mean to be condescending, but is your spelling really that bad or are you just pretending for a laugh? KarenT
  • Score: 11

3:06pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

^^That was a serious question by the way.^^
^^That was a serious question by the way.^^ KarenT
  • Score: 5

4:23pm Sat 17 May 14

HJarrs says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver.

Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.
You willing to put a profit-free covenant on your property to prevent it contributing to house price inflation and capital gains free profiteering?
I will if everyone else does. Perhaps it is time to return to paying capital gains tax on private house sale profits. However, this is of small consequence, what we need are more good quality and affordable properties right across the country most of which should be council housing.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver. Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.[/p][/quote]You willing to put a profit-free covenant on your property to prevent it contributing to house price inflation and capital gains free profiteering?[/p][/quote]I will if everyone else does. Perhaps it is time to return to paying capital gains tax on private house sale profits. However, this is of small consequence, what we need are more good quality and affordable properties right across the country most of which should be council housing. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

4:40pm Sat 17 May 14

NathanAdler says...

Think we're on a winner 'ere Trig alright. Play it nice and cool son, nice and cool. Y'know what I mean?
Think we're on a winner 'ere Trig alright. Play it nice and cool son, nice and cool. Y'know what I mean? NathanAdler
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Sat 17 May 14

boo2005 says...

god knows why, these days Hove is full of the same dreadful lowlife as Brighton and it's surrounding areas, beautiful place, disgusting people!
god knows why, these days Hove is full of the same dreadful lowlife as Brighton and it's surrounding areas, beautiful place, disgusting people! boo2005
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver.

Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.
You willing to put a profit-free covenant on your property to prevent it contributing to house price inflation and capital gains free profiteering?
I will if everyone else does. Perhaps it is time to return to paying capital gains tax on private house sale profits. However, this is of small consequence, what we need are more good quality and affordable properties right across the country most of which should be council housing.
"I will if everyone else does!" And then everyone waits for everyone else to do it first, and then no one ever does! A ridiculous notion on so many levels.

Capital gains tax on private house sales??!! That would just mean even more people stuck in their privately owned homes because they can't afford to sell (adding to those on negative equity who either bought at the wrong time or borrowed ridiculously on their equity, at a time when it was much easier to do this)...just further slowing down the housing market. And what is the government going to do with this new source of income??? Build more council property? Where? The problem isn't just about funding, it's also about population growth, leaving less and less space to develop on. It's about living in a country where many city centres, despite the second world war, are full of grade listed and protected buildings that you just can't mess with. You will still have two tiers of property ownership - those that are forced to live in low-cost new builds with poor infrastructure and inadequate local services on the outskirts of the cities, and those that aspire to live in period houses and conversions in areas like Hove (actually), Clifton in Bristol, Didsbury in Manchester, etc, as far away as possible from the "riff-raff"., with independent shops and coffee houses on their high streets instead of kebab shops, games arcades and pawn shops. One of the biggest issues is a government that permitted mass purchase of council properties about 20-30 years ago. It lifted many people out of subsidised housing and made them home owners and improved their lot in many ways, but it also seriously depleted council housing stock for the future. Now there's a serious shortage of subsidised housing for people on low incomes, and the shortage of housing generally has led to driving property prices up to the point where only those on relatively high incomes can afford to buy. Not to mention that we've had a recession and high unemployment in the mean time, and the population continues to grow, and then there's the added issue of the debacle of free movement throughout Europe, which has created a massive influx of immigration, which will just keep getting worse as poorer European countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, keep being allowed to join the union. There are just too many reasons to be drawn here if you are from a country with a poor economy, and you'd probably do the same if you were them! UK, "the streets are paved with gold, Woohoo!" (Reality, NOT racism.) I live in a conversion with 5 flats where my neighbours are barristers, doctors, wealthy professionals. Years ago flats in this building were occupied by the low-income working classes, and high-salaried professionals would have had entire period houses and villas. Go back even further and all the flat conversions in Hove would have been single family homes occupied by similarly salaried professionals! It amazes me that to buy a 2-bed flat in a Georgian conversion near the sea in Hove can now set you back by a half million or more, and without an awful lot of cash stashed away it's just not going to happen, with how challenging it has become to borrow money. There ARE no easy answers, things are tough, and I reckon they're gonna get tougher. It's a mathematical certainty - rail against it all you like but it ain't gonna change.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The solution is to build good quality affordable housing in B&H and right across the country. B&H is not an island, what happens in the rest of the country is paramount. In particular, we need to replace the 1.5+ million council houses sold under right-to-buy. We have been let down for 30 years by successive governments, who have put developers first and people second. As usual, the market has failed to deliver. Even if we make a start today, it will take 10 years to make a real difference. The sooner we start, the better.[/p][/quote]You willing to put a profit-free covenant on your property to prevent it contributing to house price inflation and capital gains free profiteering?[/p][/quote]I will if everyone else does. Perhaps it is time to return to paying capital gains tax on private house sale profits. However, this is of small consequence, what we need are more good quality and affordable properties right across the country most of which should be council housing.[/p][/quote]"I will if everyone else does!" And then everyone waits for everyone else to do it first, and then no one ever does! A ridiculous notion on so many levels. Capital gains tax on private house sales??!! That would just mean even more people stuck in their privately owned homes because they can't afford to sell (adding to those on negative equity who either bought at the wrong time or borrowed ridiculously on their equity, at a time when it was much easier to do this)...just further slowing down the housing market. And what is the government going to do with this new source of income??? Build more council property? Where? The problem isn't just about funding, it's also about population growth, leaving less and less space to develop on. It's about living in a country where many city centres, despite the second world war, are full of grade listed and protected buildings that you just can't mess with. You will still have two tiers of property ownership - those that are forced to live in low-cost new builds with poor infrastructure and inadequate local services on the outskirts of the cities, and those that aspire to live in period houses and conversions in areas like Hove (actually), Clifton in Bristol, Didsbury in Manchester, etc, as far away as possible from the "riff-raff"., with independent shops and coffee houses on their high streets instead of kebab shops, games arcades and pawn shops. One of the biggest issues is a government that permitted mass purchase of council properties about 20-30 years ago. It lifted many people out of subsidised housing and made them home owners and improved their lot in many ways, but it also seriously depleted council housing stock for the future. Now there's a serious shortage of subsidised housing for people on low incomes, and the shortage of housing generally has led to driving property prices up to the point where only those on relatively high incomes can afford to buy. Not to mention that we've had a recession and high unemployment in the mean time, and the population continues to grow, and then there's the added issue of the debacle of free movement throughout Europe, which has created a massive influx of immigration, which will just keep getting worse as poorer European countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, keep being allowed to join the union. There are just too many reasons to be drawn here if you are from a country with a poor economy, and you'd probably do the same if you were them! UK, "the streets are paved with gold, Woohoo!" (Reality, NOT racism.) I live in a conversion with 5 flats where my neighbours are barristers, doctors, wealthy professionals. Years ago flats in this building were occupied by the low-income working classes, and high-salaried professionals would have had entire period houses and villas. Go back even further and all the flat conversions in Hove would have been single family homes occupied by similarly salaried professionals! It amazes me that to buy a 2-bed flat in a Georgian conversion near the sea in Hove can now set you back by a half million or more, and without an awful lot of cash stashed away it's just not going to happen, with how challenging it has become to borrow money. There ARE no easy answers, things are tough, and I reckon they're gonna get tougher. It's a mathematical certainty - rail against it all you like but it ain't gonna change. KarenT
  • Score: 5

5:07pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry!
Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry! KarenT
  • Score: 1

5:52pm Sat 17 May 14

Hovegeek says...

homewood wrote:
King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.
What's your problem with King & Chasemore? You commented on a story regarding police CID officers not being qualified due to staff shortages and somehow related that to King & Chasemore?

Are you a competitor seeking to damage their reputation? If so, the Argus website really won't generate the traffic needed to make an impact.

I just bought a house marketed by King & Chasemore and they were absolutely fine. We got the house at a reasonable price and they were relatively efficient in dealing with the vendor.

If you have a problem with them, take it up with them, don't hijack tenuously related (and in some cases completely unrelated) comment threads just to vent your rage.
[quote][p][bold]homewood[/bold] wrote: King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.[/p][/quote]What's your problem with King & Chasemore? You commented on a story regarding police CID officers not being qualified due to staff shortages and somehow related that to King & Chasemore? Are you a competitor seeking to damage their reputation? If so, the Argus website really won't generate the traffic needed to make an impact. I just bought a house marketed by King & Chasemore and they were absolutely fine. We got the house at a reasonable price and they were relatively efficient in dealing with the vendor. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them, don't hijack tenuously related (and in some cases completely unrelated) comment threads just to vent your rage. Hovegeek
  • Score: 5

5:58pm Sat 17 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

I thought that the whole point of Hove was to be an up-market place where Brightonians could live.
I thought that the whole point of Hove was to be an up-market place where Brightonians could live. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

6:06pm Sat 17 May 14

Mr chock says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home.
Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.
I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.
If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter!
ohh The answer is NOT to build more housing (in Brighton & Hove) ...
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home. Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.[/p][/quote]I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.[/p][/quote]If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter![/p][/quote]ohh The answer is NOT to build more housing (in Brighton & Hove) ... Mr chock
  • Score: 1

6:39pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
I thought that the whole point of Hove was to be an up-market place where Brightonians could live.
It's an "upmarket place" where people with money can live. Nothing to do with whether or not you are a born and bred Brightonian. The only possible advantage to being a 'born and bred Brightonian' is that it might get you higher up on the list for social housing and hostels for the homeless and/or recovering alcoholics/drug addicts, and as we all know that list is so long that it's almost pointless being on it in the first place. I was just shocked to learn from this thread that to rent one of those shipping container flats in New England Road would set you back around £650 per month! That's more than my mortgage! I thought they might have been around £200 per month or something quite attainable for homeless people trying to start their lives over again. £650 per month to live in a tin shipping container??! And the DM claims that asylum seekers and migrants are being put up in four-star £100 per night hotels because of a shortage of accommodation. I like to think I'm intelligent enough to not just jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon, but it's a bit difficult to remain neutral with stats like that! There might be a bit of propaganda going on there, especially with the upcoming elections, but this is in many cases what is happening right now in this country!
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: I thought that the whole point of Hove was to be an up-market place where Brightonians could live.[/p][/quote]It's an "upmarket place" where people with money can live. Nothing to do with whether or not you are a born and bred Brightonian. The only possible advantage to being a 'born and bred Brightonian' is that it might get you higher up on the list for social housing and hostels for the homeless and/or recovering alcoholics/drug addicts, and as we all know that list is so long that it's almost pointless being on it in the first place. I was just shocked to learn from this thread that to rent one of those shipping container flats in New England Road would set you back around £650 per month! That's more than my mortgage! I thought they might have been around £200 per month or something quite attainable for homeless people trying to start their lives over again. £650 per month to live in a tin shipping container??! And the DM claims that asylum seekers and migrants are being put up in four-star £100 per night hotels because of a shortage of accommodation. I like to think I'm intelligent enough to not just jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon, but it's a bit difficult to remain neutral with stats like that! There might be a bit of propaganda going on there, especially with the upcoming elections, but this is in many cases what is happening right now in this country! KarenT
  • Score: 8

6:44pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

Mr chock wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home.
Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.
I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.
If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter!
ohh The answer is NOT to build more housing (in Brighton & Hove) ...
OK... where are you going to build them??? And what about the massive investment in infrastructure and social services that would be required as well? People act as though "building more social housing" is the catch-all answer to everything! Like some mantra. How about everyone in B&H with a garden or a garage allows the council to build a low-cost housing unit there? Or they could force all homeowners to make a spare bedroom available to a person priced out of the housing market? Hey, I will, if everyone else does first! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: My elderly neighbour died and she left instruction in her will that her home should be sold to a family and not be converted into buy to let. A lovely young family moved in and paid the same price as anyone else would have and at least they treasure their home. Maybe people should be more caring about who they sell to in order to help protect the housing stock and communities.[/p][/quote]I wonder if that "lovely young family" will also adhere to that instruction when it comes time for them to sell.[/p][/quote]If there is a specifying covenant on the property they will have to. Otherwise not. I wonder how many property-owning Green cllrs would be willing to put a covenant of this order on their homes to keep the value profit-free...hmmm. Or Labour cllrs, or Labour, Green, LibDem politicians per se. Would Farage or that matter![/p][/quote]ohh The answer is NOT to build more housing (in Brighton & Hove) ...[/p][/quote]OK... where are you going to build them??? And what about the massive investment in infrastructure and social services that would be required as well? People act as though "building more social housing" is the catch-all answer to everything! Like some mantra. How about everyone in B&H with a garden or a garage allows the council to build a low-cost housing unit there? Or they could force all homeowners to make a spare bedroom available to a person priced out of the housing market? Hey, I will, if everyone else does first! ;-) KarenT
  • Score: 2

7:32pm Sat 17 May 14

gbfroggy says...

Have you been in the centre of Brighton. Impossible to walk. The infrastructure has reached its limit.
3 types of people are laughing. The Londoner who finds it sooooo cheap and pushes the prices up...gazzunping is back.
The estate agent who takes his commission. The more it is expensive the more he gets. He has also invented some stories such as stars buying, bullet train line....
The tax man who pockets the stamp duty.

I am always surprise how naive people are trumpeting the price of their sold property and unless they move to cheaper areas, the next step in BTN is higher so no gain at all.
We have been had once again.
Have you been in the centre of Brighton. Impossible to walk. The infrastructure has reached its limit. 3 types of people are laughing. The Londoner who finds it sooooo cheap and pushes the prices up...gazzunping is back. The estate agent who takes his commission. The more it is expensive the more he gets. He has also invented some stories such as stars buying, bullet train line.... The tax man who pockets the stamp duty. I am always surprise how naive people are trumpeting the price of their sold property and unless they move to cheaper areas, the next step in BTN is higher so no gain at all. We have been had once again. gbfroggy
  • Score: 7

8:21pm Sat 17 May 14

Harry Brown says...

Hovegeek wrote:
homewood wrote:
King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.
What's your problem with King & Chasemore? You commented on a story regarding police CID officers not being qualified due to staff shortages and somehow related that to King & Chasemore?

Are you a competitor seeking to damage their reputation? If so, the Argus website really won't generate the traffic needed to make an impact.

I just bought a house marketed by King & Chasemore and they were absolutely fine. We got the house at a reasonable price and they were relatively efficient in dealing with the vendor.

If you have a problem with them, take it up with them, don't hijack tenuously related (and in some cases completely unrelated) comment threads just to vent your rage.
'Relatively efficient' - A glowing review then!

K & C are part of Countrywide, one of the biggest agency groups in the UK.

As with most of the big chains, profit comes well above service in the priorities and with each manager being overseen by another manager and another etc. etc. and the emphasis all on targets, these companies push and push prices by forcing their staff into valuing stuff just to get it on.

I have worked for several in the past and no longer want to do it, but I have been told by numerous area managers to' get it on and worry about managing expectations later'.

This is true of any of your big corporates and although Brighton has escaped from the worst culprit (Connells) you still have Fox and Sons, Hamptons, K & C, and any Arun Estates companies. Research and stay away from anyone but true independents. They all have the same advertising coverage now its online anyway. Central London offices? B*******.

Oh, and you think your agent is working to get the best price for you at a corporate? He is working to get ANY price; as by the time the commission has filtered down to him, the difference in a price reduction of £20,000 to you, is a matter of a few quid to your negotiator.

I have no ties with any local agents any more, but I know them all and I would say only ever deal with independent agencies, there are some good ones in town especially Goldin Lemcke, Callaways, John Hoole and avoid any corporate connections like the plague.
[quote][p][bold]Hovegeek[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]homewood[/bold] wrote: King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.[/p][/quote]What's your problem with King & Chasemore? You commented on a story regarding police CID officers not being qualified due to staff shortages and somehow related that to King & Chasemore? Are you a competitor seeking to damage their reputation? If so, the Argus website really won't generate the traffic needed to make an impact. I just bought a house marketed by King & Chasemore and they were absolutely fine. We got the house at a reasonable price and they were relatively efficient in dealing with the vendor. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them, don't hijack tenuously related (and in some cases completely unrelated) comment threads just to vent your rage.[/p][/quote]'Relatively efficient' - A glowing review then! K & C are part of Countrywide, one of the biggest agency groups in the UK. As with most of the big chains, profit comes well above service in the priorities and with each manager being overseen by another manager and another etc. etc. and the emphasis all on targets, these companies push and push prices by forcing their staff into valuing stuff just to get it on. I have worked for several in the past and no longer want to do it, but I have been told by numerous area managers to' get it on and worry about managing expectations later'. This is true of any of your big corporates and although Brighton has escaped from the worst culprit (Connells) you still have Fox and Sons, Hamptons, K & C, and any Arun Estates companies. Research and stay away from anyone but true independents. They all have the same advertising coverage now its online anyway. Central London offices? B*******. Oh, and you think your agent is working to get the best price for you at a corporate? He is working to get ANY price; as by the time the commission has filtered down to him, the difference in a price reduction of £20,000 to you, is a matter of a few quid to your negotiator. I have no ties with any local agents any more, but I know them all and I would say only ever deal with independent agencies, there are some good ones in town especially Goldin Lemcke, Callaways, John Hoole and avoid any corporate connections like the plague. Harry Brown
  • Score: 1

8:54pm Sat 17 May 14

s&k says...

My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east! s&k
  • Score: 1

9:36pm Sat 17 May 14

bluemonday says...

s&k wrote:
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response
[quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east![/p][/quote]and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response bluemonday
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Sat 17 May 14

156 IQ says...

Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED. 156 IQ
  • Score: -1

10:02pm Sat 17 May 14

NickBrt says...

Don't blame them moving to Hove. No fracking students.
Don't blame them moving to Hove. No fracking students. NickBrt
  • Score: 5

10:29pm Sat 17 May 14

KarenT says...

156 IQ wrote:
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
When it comes to buying a home I don't think people generally are "sheep" as you say. They're parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds and they kind of have to actually "like" the place! I don't think if suddenly anyone started to talk about what a great place, say, Hull was to live, everyone would just blindly buy into the hype and move there. While Hove might not suit a lot of people for different reasons that you've stated, it still has a big pull for people who want to live in a pretty town by the sea with lots of period architecture, and "the buzz" of plenty of restaurants and nightlife and entertainment, although those last points aren't criteria for me, but they would've been 20 years ago. Plus many of the local schools seem to perform quite well, from what I hear. The sea on one side, the downs on the other, it has a lot going for it. When I moved here I had to come down about a half dozen times and wander around and look at flats before I decided I wanted to live here, just cuz I liked it. Not everyone is stupid and led by popular opinion, and not all people with money are fools either! You're making an awful lot of generalisations which I think have little foundation. I'm assuming you don't live in Hove, as you seem to hate it so much, so I'm sure wherever you live you're quite happy. That's all that matters really.
[quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.[/p][/quote]When it comes to buying a home I don't think people generally are "sheep" as you say. They're parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds and they kind of have to actually "like" the place! I don't think if suddenly anyone started to talk about what a great place, say, Hull was to live, everyone would just blindly buy into the hype and move there. While Hove might not suit a lot of people for different reasons that you've stated, it still has a big pull for people who want to live in a pretty town by the sea with lots of period architecture, and "the buzz" of plenty of restaurants and nightlife and entertainment, although those last points aren't criteria for me, but they would've been 20 years ago. Plus many of the local schools seem to perform quite well, from what I hear. The sea on one side, the downs on the other, it has a lot going for it. When I moved here I had to come down about a half dozen times and wander around and look at flats before I decided I wanted to live here, just cuz I liked it. Not everyone is stupid and led by popular opinion, and not all people with money are fools either! You're making an awful lot of generalisations which I think have little foundation. I'm assuming you don't live in Hove, as you seem to hate it so much, so I'm sure wherever you live you're quite happy. That's all that matters really. KarenT
  • Score: 5

2:41am Sun 18 May 14

Kate234 says...

mark by the sea wrote:
So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets!
Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs!
Sadly that has always been the case. I used to work in central London. I didn't assume I had a right to buy a flat next to Hyde Park and got angry because prices were too high in London. I just commuted from Brighton. No one has a right to live anywhere. Certain key workers (e.g. emergency service personnel) should not be forced to commute more than an hour to work but other than that if you can't afford to live in Brighton move to Hastings or Worthing.

As rent goes up and housing benefit goes down I am sure much more rental property and property to buy will become available. Lets face it if you are not working in Brighton you don't need to live here unless you are disabled or your unemployment is temporary.
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets! Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs![/p][/quote]Sadly that has always been the case. I used to work in central London. I didn't assume I had a right to buy a flat next to Hyde Park and got angry because prices were too high in London. I just commuted from Brighton. No one has a right to live anywhere. Certain key workers (e.g. emergency service personnel) should not be forced to commute more than an hour to work but other than that if you can't afford to live in Brighton move to Hastings or Worthing. As rent goes up and housing benefit goes down I am sure much more rental property and property to buy will become available. Lets face it if you are not working in Brighton you don't need to live here unless you are disabled or your unemployment is temporary. Kate234
  • Score: 7

2:47am Sun 18 May 14

Zeta Function says...

Property development as an industry has to change.

It is overwhelmingly organised and controlled by men who see property development as a means to make profits from assets rather than providing homes and communities where people can live sustainably.

For women to become property developers they have to get finance, work with different trades in the construction industry, know how to deal with unions.

More women need to be employed in such jobs. Then we might actually get homes that are valued for being comfortable and a pleasure to live in. Not built for exchange value when sold.

The macho asset minded culture has to go.
Property development as an industry has to change. It is overwhelmingly organised and controlled by men who see property development as a means to make profits from assets rather than providing homes and communities where people can live sustainably. For women to become property developers they have to get finance, work with different trades in the construction industry, know how to deal with unions. More women need to be employed in such jobs. Then we might actually get homes that are valued for being comfortable and a pleasure to live in. Not built for exchange value when sold. The macho asset minded culture has to go. Zeta Function
  • Score: -3

7:59am Sun 18 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

mark by the sea wrote:
So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets!
Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs!
Where on earth did Bill Randall say anything like that ffs??!!!
[quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets! Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs![/p][/quote]Where on earth did Bill Randall say anything like that ffs??!!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

8:12am Sun 18 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

wippasnapper wrote:
It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.
Moron!
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.[/p][/quote]Moron! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 0

8:21am Sun 18 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

156 IQ wrote:
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
What a load of absolute tosh!!
[quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.[/p][/quote]What a load of absolute tosh!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -1

8:21am Sun 18 May 14

brighton bluenose says...

156 IQ wrote:
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
What a load of absolute tosh!!
[quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.[/p][/quote]What a load of absolute tosh!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -3

8:35am Sun 18 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

KarenT wrote:
Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry!
No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry![/p][/quote]No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 2

8:39am Sun 18 May 14

Wiggsy says...

KarenT wrote:
wippasnapper wrote:
It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.
Sorry, don't mean to be condescending, but is your spelling really that bad or are you just pretending for a laugh?
Evidently didn't occur to you that the individual may suffer from dyslexia then?
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.[/p][/quote]Sorry, don't mean to be condescending, but is your spelling really that bad or are you just pretending for a laugh?[/p][/quote]Evidently didn't occur to you that the individual may suffer from dyslexia then? Wiggsy
  • Score: -1

8:50am Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

Zeta Function wrote:
Property development as an industry has to change.

It is overwhelmingly organised and controlled by men who see property development as a means to make profits from assets rather than providing homes and communities where people can live sustainably.

For women to become property developers they have to get finance, work with different trades in the construction industry, know how to deal with unions.

More women need to be employed in such jobs. Then we might actually get homes that are valued for being comfortable and a pleasure to live in. Not built for exchange value when sold.

The macho asset minded culture has to go.
It's nothing to do with a 'macho mindset'! I'm a woman and if I were a developer I too would be motivated by financial return on my investment. It would be my job after all, and I'd need the money to make the investment worthwhile, so I could invest in the next property. It's a business! You think there should be more woman developers, cuz all women by nature are so nurturing and altruistic, and they would all build pretty and inexpensive homes for the financially-challeng
ed to live in? Awwww, ain't that nice...
[quote][p][bold]Zeta Function[/bold] wrote: Property development as an industry has to change. It is overwhelmingly organised and controlled by men who see property development as a means to make profits from assets rather than providing homes and communities where people can live sustainably. For women to become property developers they have to get finance, work with different trades in the construction industry, know how to deal with unions. More women need to be employed in such jobs. Then we might actually get homes that are valued for being comfortable and a pleasure to live in. Not built for exchange value when sold. The macho asset minded culture has to go.[/p][/quote]It's nothing to do with a 'macho mindset'! I'm a woman and if I were a developer I too would be motivated by financial return on my investment. It would be my job after all, and I'd need the money to make the investment worthwhile, so I could invest in the next property. It's a business! You think there should be more woman developers, cuz all women by nature are so nurturing and altruistic, and they would all build pretty and inexpensive homes for the financially-challeng ed to live in? Awwww, ain't that nice... KarenT
  • Score: 5

8:52am Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry!
No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.
That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry![/p][/quote]No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.[/p][/quote]That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things. KarenT
  • Score: 0

8:54am Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

KarenT wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry!
No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.
That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.
Sorry, I responded to the wrong post there! And thanks for your comment, you're right about paragraphs...
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry![/p][/quote]No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.[/p][/quote]That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.[/p][/quote]Sorry, I responded to the wrong post there! And thanks for your comment, you're right about paragraphs... KarenT
  • Score: 2

8:56am Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

Wiggsy wrote:
KarenT wrote:
wippasnapper wrote:
It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.
Sorry, don't mean to be condescending, but is your spelling really that bad or are you just pretending for a laugh?
Evidently didn't occur to you that the individual may suffer from dyslexia then?
That's not what dyslexia looks like... it's just bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.
[quote][p][bold]Wiggsy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: It amasses me that some complain about people coming to this City to buying up probity’s to live in sunny old B&H but you want heat anyone saying much about the overwhelming privet probity’s plus the new builds of student accommodation at lest these people why buy are going to pay council tax unlike the students who just make a mess of our of our city and put a strain on this city’s services and the green led council well if they truthfully cared about the young in B&H they’d do more to help them like building new affordable homes but ever sins thieve been in control there main concern has been cycle paths to witch cyclists are at the top of there agender anyone less able is out of the pitcher.[/p][/quote]Sorry, don't mean to be condescending, but is your spelling really that bad or are you just pretending for a laugh?[/p][/quote]Evidently didn't occur to you that the individual may suffer from dyslexia then?[/p][/quote]That's not what dyslexia looks like... it's just bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things. KarenT
  • Score: 0

9:10am Sun 18 May 14

HJarrs says...

This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there. HJarrs
  • Score: 2

9:11am Sun 18 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Kate234 wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets!
Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs!
Sadly that has always been the case. I used to work in central London. I didn't assume I had a right to buy a flat next to Hyde Park and got angry because prices were too high in London. I just commuted from Brighton. No one has a right to live anywhere. Certain key workers (e.g. emergency service personnel) should not be forced to commute more than an hour to work but other than that if you can't afford to live in Brighton move to Hastings or Worthing.

As rent goes up and housing benefit goes down I am sure much more rental property and property to buy will become available. Lets face it if you are not working in Brighton you don't need to live here unless you are disabled or your unemployment is temporary.
Just as we need a mixed economy and biodiversity in the natural world we are part of, so it takes all kinds and differing educational and manual skillsets to makes a successful social and economic mix. And a refuse collector, plumber, shelf stacker or bank clerk is just as much of a key worker as any of those officially designated as such IMHO.

The low paid need to live close to where work is too. More so. Otherwise their travel costs eat more deeply into time and money to be affordable. If you earned enough to be a commuter from Brighton to London (which is not an easy life even for the young and fit) that is fine, but what if the wages did not cover travel and still allow enough for food and the necessary place to live?

We used to have mixed levels of housing in our towns and cities and porfolio landlords whose property was paid for decades ago and passed on to heirs to earn from, which kept rents affordable, with people renting in the same home and community for decades too. What you are promoting is the unstable churn and housing apartheid which began with Margaret Thatcher and the rise and rise of the yuppy and housing as a trading commodity to make money from like stocks and shares.

Your way would see rich and poor ghettoised into separate towns instead of just rich and poor neighbourhoods.
[quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets! Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs![/p][/quote]Sadly that has always been the case. I used to work in central London. I didn't assume I had a right to buy a flat next to Hyde Park and got angry because prices were too high in London. I just commuted from Brighton. No one has a right to live anywhere. Certain key workers (e.g. emergency service personnel) should not be forced to commute more than an hour to work but other than that if you can't afford to live in Brighton move to Hastings or Worthing. As rent goes up and housing benefit goes down I am sure much more rental property and property to buy will become available. Lets face it if you are not working in Brighton you don't need to live here unless you are disabled or your unemployment is temporary.[/p][/quote]Just as we need a mixed economy and biodiversity in the natural world we are part of, so it takes all kinds and differing educational and manual skillsets to makes a successful social and economic mix. And a refuse collector, plumber, shelf stacker or bank clerk is just as much of a key worker as any of those officially designated as such IMHO. The low paid need to live close to where work is too. More so. Otherwise their travel costs eat more deeply into time and money to be affordable. If you earned enough to be a commuter from Brighton to London (which is not an easy life even for the young and fit) that is fine, but what if the wages did not cover travel and still allow enough for food and the necessary place to live? We used to have mixed levels of housing in our towns and cities and porfolio landlords whose property was paid for decades ago and passed on to heirs to earn from, which kept rents affordable, with people renting in the same home and community for decades too. What you are promoting is the unstable churn and housing apartheid which began with Margaret Thatcher and the rise and rise of the yuppy and housing as a trading commodity to make money from like stocks and shares. Your way would see rich and poor ghettoised into separate towns instead of just rich and poor neighbourhoods. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 4

10:36am Sun 18 May 14

156 IQ says...

KarenT wrote:
156 IQ wrote:
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
When it comes to buying a home I don't think people generally are "sheep" as you say. They're parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds and they kind of have to actually "like" the place! I don't think if suddenly anyone started to talk about what a great place, say, Hull was to live, everyone would just blindly buy into the hype and move there. While Hove might not suit a lot of people for different reasons that you've stated, it still has a big pull for people who want to live in a pretty town by the sea with lots of period architecture, and "the buzz" of plenty of restaurants and nightlife and entertainment, although those last points aren't criteria for me, but they would've been 20 years ago. Plus many of the local schools seem to perform quite well, from what I hear. The sea on one side, the downs on the other, it has a lot going for it. When I moved here I had to come down about a half dozen times and wander around and look at flats before I decided I wanted to live here, just cuz I liked it. Not everyone is stupid and led by popular opinion, and not all people with money are fools either! You're making an awful lot of generalisations which I think have little foundation. I'm assuming you don't live in Hove, as you seem to hate it so much, so I'm sure wherever you live you're quite happy. That's all that matters really.
There you go another one in denial. All along the coast there are places much nicer, quieter and cheaper than Hove. Eastbourne has sea and the country behind and good rail links also Hastings and worthing, but the sheep follow the trends.
No I no longer live in Brighton/Hove because it's the same place it was when I left it 15 years ago. I swapped my 1 bed flat for a four bed house with a drive and a garage. I can sleep knowing I won't come down to a road cone on my bonnet in the morning (aftermath of the wonderful nightlife). And yes my work takes 10 minutes longer to get to now, but would I move back NEVER. I realised that that the best thing to happen to the area was the bypass, because now there's no need to drive through the dump whilst on your way to much nicer places.
And I think someone on this forum said to build a wall between the downs and Hove, maybe there should be a wall right the way around with warnings on the outside!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.[/p][/quote]When it comes to buying a home I don't think people generally are "sheep" as you say. They're parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds and they kind of have to actually "like" the place! I don't think if suddenly anyone started to talk about what a great place, say, Hull was to live, everyone would just blindly buy into the hype and move there. While Hove might not suit a lot of people for different reasons that you've stated, it still has a big pull for people who want to live in a pretty town by the sea with lots of period architecture, and "the buzz" of plenty of restaurants and nightlife and entertainment, although those last points aren't criteria for me, but they would've been 20 years ago. Plus many of the local schools seem to perform quite well, from what I hear. The sea on one side, the downs on the other, it has a lot going for it. When I moved here I had to come down about a half dozen times and wander around and look at flats before I decided I wanted to live here, just cuz I liked it. Not everyone is stupid and led by popular opinion, and not all people with money are fools either! You're making an awful lot of generalisations which I think have little foundation. I'm assuming you don't live in Hove, as you seem to hate it so much, so I'm sure wherever you live you're quite happy. That's all that matters really.[/p][/quote]There you go another one in denial. All along the coast there are places much nicer, quieter and cheaper than Hove. Eastbourne has sea and the country behind and good rail links also Hastings and worthing, but the sheep follow the trends. No I no longer live in Brighton/Hove because it's the same place it was when I left it 15 years ago. I swapped my 1 bed flat for a four bed house with a drive and a garage. I can sleep knowing I won't come down to a road cone on my bonnet in the morning (aftermath of the wonderful nightlife). And yes my work takes 10 minutes longer to get to now, but would I move back NEVER. I realised that that the best thing to happen to the area was the bypass, because now there's no need to drive through the dump whilst on your way to much nicer places. And I think someone on this forum said to build a wall between the downs and Hove, maybe there should be a wall right the way around with warnings on the outside! 156 IQ
  • Score: 1

11:20am Sun 18 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

KarenT wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry!
No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.
That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.
Karen read the original you are replying to - Wiggsy mentioned dyslexia replying to you replyin to me. I have made no mention of dyslexia!
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry![/p][/quote]No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.[/p][/quote]That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.[/p][/quote]Karen read the original you are replying to - Wiggsy mentioned dyslexia replying to you replyin to me. I have made no mention of dyslexia! Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

11:25am Sun 18 May 14

Valerie Paynter says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
KarenT wrote:
Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry!
No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.
That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.
Karen read the original you are replying to - Wiggsy mentioned dyslexia replying to you replyin to me. I have made no mention of dyslexia!
Oops. Didn't see your apology in the next post before replying. My turn to apologise.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Oops, went on there a bit didn't I? Sorry![/p][/quote]No. You say it. Lovely to try and read, but without paragraphs it starts to be a contest between following the argument and the eye ache of keeping up. Paragraphs give the mind and eye a break and separate differing arguments and points so it is easier to read.[/p][/quote]That's not what dyslexia looks like! It's just plain bad spelling. Good thing you don't have to diagnose such things.[/p][/quote]Karen read the original you are replying to - Wiggsy mentioned dyslexia replying to you replyin to me. I have made no mention of dyslexia![/p][/quote]Oops. Didn't see your apology in the next post before replying. My turn to apologise. Valerie Paynter
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

156 IQ wrote:
KarenT wrote:
156 IQ wrote:
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
When it comes to buying a home I don't think people generally are "sheep" as you say. They're parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds and they kind of have to actually "like" the place! I don't think if suddenly anyone started to talk about what a great place, say, Hull was to live, everyone would just blindly buy into the hype and move there. While Hove might not suit a lot of people for different reasons that you've stated, it still has a big pull for people who want to live in a pretty town by the sea with lots of period architecture, and "the buzz" of plenty of restaurants and nightlife and entertainment, although those last points aren't criteria for me, but they would've been 20 years ago. Plus many of the local schools seem to perform quite well, from what I hear. The sea on one side, the downs on the other, it has a lot going for it. When I moved here I had to come down about a half dozen times and wander around and look at flats before I decided I wanted to live here, just cuz I liked it. Not everyone is stupid and led by popular opinion, and not all people with money are fools either! You're making an awful lot of generalisations which I think have little foundation. I'm assuming you don't live in Hove, as you seem to hate it so much, so I'm sure wherever you live you're quite happy. That's all that matters really.
There you go another one in denial. All along the coast there are places much nicer, quieter and cheaper than Hove. Eastbourne has sea and the country behind and good rail links also Hastings and worthing, but the sheep follow the trends.
No I no longer live in Brighton/Hove because it's the same place it was when I left it 15 years ago. I swapped my 1 bed flat for a four bed house with a drive and a garage. I can sleep knowing I won't come down to a road cone on my bonnet in the morning (aftermath of the wonderful nightlife). And yes my work takes 10 minutes longer to get to now, but would I move back NEVER. I realised that that the best thing to happen to the area was the bypass, because now there's no need to drive through the dump whilst on your way to much nicer places.
And I think someone on this forum said to build a wall between the downs and Hove, maybe there should be a wall right the way around with warnings on the outside!
How am I "in denial"? I haven't suggested that you are "in denial" just because you decided you didn't want to live in B&H anymore and live elsewhere in Sussex! It's your choice! And not everyone wants "quieter". And who says places like Eastbourne, Hastings and Worthing are "nicer"??! I don't think so - otherwise plenty of people would flock there instead and drive house prices up! People are not stupid! And Hastings, jeez... so much of it is awful. I mean, I like St Leonards and the old bit of Hastings on the other side, but the town centre and the rest of Hastings generally.... Slummy! High unemployment, crime and deprivation. How is that "nicer"?! Yes you may get more for your money, but there's a reason for that. As I said I shall probably be moving to Hastings or Bexhill in the next year cuz I want a bigger place and no mortgage. But hey, if it was either Hastings or, say, a house in Montpelier Street or Clifton Terrace... I know what I'd choose!
[quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.[/p][/quote]When it comes to buying a home I don't think people generally are "sheep" as you say. They're parting with hundreds of thousands of pounds and they kind of have to actually "like" the place! I don't think if suddenly anyone started to talk about what a great place, say, Hull was to live, everyone would just blindly buy into the hype and move there. While Hove might not suit a lot of people for different reasons that you've stated, it still has a big pull for people who want to live in a pretty town by the sea with lots of period architecture, and "the buzz" of plenty of restaurants and nightlife and entertainment, although those last points aren't criteria for me, but they would've been 20 years ago. Plus many of the local schools seem to perform quite well, from what I hear. The sea on one side, the downs on the other, it has a lot going for it. When I moved here I had to come down about a half dozen times and wander around and look at flats before I decided I wanted to live here, just cuz I liked it. Not everyone is stupid and led by popular opinion, and not all people with money are fools either! You're making an awful lot of generalisations which I think have little foundation. I'm assuming you don't live in Hove, as you seem to hate it so much, so I'm sure wherever you live you're quite happy. That's all that matters really.[/p][/quote]There you go another one in denial. All along the coast there are places much nicer, quieter and cheaper than Hove. Eastbourne has sea and the country behind and good rail links also Hastings and worthing, but the sheep follow the trends. No I no longer live in Brighton/Hove because it's the same place it was when I left it 15 years ago. I swapped my 1 bed flat for a four bed house with a drive and a garage. I can sleep knowing I won't come down to a road cone on my bonnet in the morning (aftermath of the wonderful nightlife). And yes my work takes 10 minutes longer to get to now, but would I move back NEVER. I realised that that the best thing to happen to the area was the bypass, because now there's no need to drive through the dump whilst on your way to much nicer places. And I think someone on this forum said to build a wall between the downs and Hove, maybe there should be a wall right the way around with warnings on the outside![/p][/quote]How am I "in denial"? I haven't suggested that you are "in denial" just because you decided you didn't want to live in B&H anymore and live elsewhere in Sussex! It's your choice! And not everyone wants "quieter". And who says places like Eastbourne, Hastings and Worthing are "nicer"??! I don't think so - otherwise plenty of people would flock there instead and drive house prices up! People are not stupid! And Hastings, jeez... so much of it is awful. I mean, I like St Leonards and the old bit of Hastings on the other side, but the town centre and the rest of Hastings generally.... Slummy! High unemployment, crime and deprivation. How is that "nicer"?! Yes you may get more for your money, but there's a reason for that. As I said I shall probably be moving to Hastings or Bexhill in the next year cuz I want a bigger place and no mortgage. But hey, if it was either Hastings or, say, a house in Montpelier Street or Clifton Terrace... I know what I'd choose! KarenT
  • Score: 3

1:17pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Kate234 wrote:
mark by the sea wrote:
So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets!
Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs!
Sadly that has always been the case. I used to work in central London. I didn't assume I had a right to buy a flat next to Hyde Park and got angry because prices were too high in London. I just commuted from Brighton. No one has a right to live anywhere. Certain key workers (e.g. emergency service personnel) should not be forced to commute more than an hour to work but other than that if you can't afford to live in Brighton move to Hastings or Worthing.

As rent goes up and housing benefit goes down I am sure much more rental property and property to buy will become available. Lets face it if you are not working in Brighton you don't need to live here unless you are disabled or your unemployment is temporary.
Just as we need a mixed economy and biodiversity in the natural world we are part of, so it takes all kinds and differing educational and manual skillsets to makes a successful social and economic mix. And a refuse collector, plumber, shelf stacker or bank clerk is just as much of a key worker as any of those officially designated as such IMHO.

The low paid need to live close to where work is too. More so. Otherwise their travel costs eat more deeply into time and money to be affordable. If you earned enough to be a commuter from Brighton to London (which is not an easy life even for the young and fit) that is fine, but what if the wages did not cover travel and still allow enough for food and the necessary place to live?

We used to have mixed levels of housing in our towns and cities and porfolio landlords whose property was paid for decades ago and passed on to heirs to earn from, which kept rents affordable, with people renting in the same home and community for decades too. What you are promoting is the unstable churn and housing apartheid which began with Margaret Thatcher and the rise and rise of the yuppy and housing as a trading commodity to make money from like stocks and shares.

Your way would see rich and poor ghettoised into separate towns instead of just rich and poor neighbourhoods.
I don't think Kate was saying that she is a proponent necessarily of wealth forcing people to move out of popular/expensive areas. It's just the way it is - it's what happens. Areas become sought after, many become priced out, they go elsewhere, the new area gentrifies, then that area becomes popular/expensive and local people are eventually priced out.... repeat.

I lived in London for 25 years and saw that happen all the time, in different boroughs. I mean Notting Hill and Islington for example used to be real slum bucket places! Now... forget it. To live there you have to be rich, or famous, or both (or prepared to live in a 8 x 8 foot bedsit room for £2,000 per month). I just don't think you can stop that from happening - it always has and always will. Even back in Roman times, all the wealthy lived on Palatine Hill opposite the forum, and the less wealthy you were, the further out you ended up being shunted. Unless you were an on-premises slave. But that had it's disadvantages of course! :D
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kate234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mark by the sea[/bold] wrote: So bill Randal says people coming from London pushing up prices is a good thing? What about the ones not on 50k a year? Oh yes rent and get assistance from the council in housing benefits which comes from our pockets! Ukip should stop worrying about our borders and build a fence across the South Downs![/p][/quote]Sadly that has always been the case. I used to work in central London. I didn't assume I had a right to buy a flat next to Hyde Park and got angry because prices were too high in London. I just commuted from Brighton. No one has a right to live anywhere. Certain key workers (e.g. emergency service personnel) should not be forced to commute more than an hour to work but other than that if you can't afford to live in Brighton move to Hastings or Worthing. As rent goes up and housing benefit goes down I am sure much more rental property and property to buy will become available. Lets face it if you are not working in Brighton you don't need to live here unless you are disabled or your unemployment is temporary.[/p][/quote]Just as we need a mixed economy and biodiversity in the natural world we are part of, so it takes all kinds and differing educational and manual skillsets to makes a successful social and economic mix. And a refuse collector, plumber, shelf stacker or bank clerk is just as much of a key worker as any of those officially designated as such IMHO. The low paid need to live close to where work is too. More so. Otherwise their travel costs eat more deeply into time and money to be affordable. If you earned enough to be a commuter from Brighton to London (which is not an easy life even for the young and fit) that is fine, but what if the wages did not cover travel and still allow enough for food and the necessary place to live? We used to have mixed levels of housing in our towns and cities and porfolio landlords whose property was paid for decades ago and passed on to heirs to earn from, which kept rents affordable, with people renting in the same home and community for decades too. What you are promoting is the unstable churn and housing apartheid which began with Margaret Thatcher and the rise and rise of the yuppy and housing as a trading commodity to make money from like stocks and shares. Your way would see rich and poor ghettoised into separate towns instead of just rich and poor neighbourhoods.[/p][/quote]I don't think Kate was saying that she is a proponent necessarily of wealth forcing people to move out of popular/expensive areas. It's just the way it is - it's what happens. Areas become sought after, many become priced out, they go elsewhere, the new area gentrifies, then that area becomes popular/expensive and local people are eventually priced out.... repeat. I lived in London for 25 years and saw that happen all the time, in different boroughs. I mean Notting Hill and Islington for example used to be real slum bucket places! Now... forget it. To live there you have to be rich, or famous, or both (or prepared to live in a 8 x 8 foot bedsit room for £2,000 per month). I just don't think you can stop that from happening - it always has and always will. Even back in Roman times, all the wealthy lived on Palatine Hill opposite the forum, and the less wealthy you were, the further out you ended up being shunted. Unless you were an on-premises slave. But that had it's disadvantages of course! :D KarenT
  • Score: 1

1:25pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

^^ See I used paragraphs there! :D ^^
^^ See I used paragraphs there! :D ^^ KarenT
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Sun 18 May 14

156 IQ says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
156 IQ wrote:
Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!.
You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are.
A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.
What a load of absolute tosh!!
And I Suppose you live in Hove? .
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: Once again all the sheep fall in line, Hove is a miserable place rotten with drunks and Drugs at night, and over priced coffee shops during the day. Maybe we should believe all the hype about everything and buy over priced cars and under achieving mobile phones because we believe the hype. Hove has nothing! Is it a safe place at night? , no is it easy to get around? , no over priced public transport. Is it a nice place if you drive a car?, no 20 my speed limits revenue cameras everywhere and £40 a quarter on top of your road tax to park in your own street!. You know what you can keep it. It's like the Kings new clothes but no one will admit it. Aspire to tell you friends where you live and everyone can laugh behind your back, saying mug!!! Oh and while your there get an iPhone and an Audi then everyone wherever you go can tell how gullible you are. A FOOL AND THEIR MONEY ARE EASILY PARTED.[/p][/quote]What a load of absolute tosh!![/p][/quote]And I Suppose you live in Hove? . 156 IQ
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't??? KarenT
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Sun 18 May 14

156 IQ says...

It seems to me the intelligent ones are leaving London down buying and ending up mortgage free, then the people who lived in Hove who were realising the issues have moved to larger or less expensive properties and are either more comfortable or mortgage free. I had a flat in Brighton sold for 1st more than I purchased and moved to Hove to a large Edwardian flat near the front, realised I couldn't enjoy living there with the lack of parking, vandalism and drunk defrost. So looked out of town. Sold up now I have a 5 bedroom house with off road parking and a garage a 120 foot rear garden and no mortgage, I don't have to work so hard, I know my kids are safe playing in the local vicinity and haven't come out to a road cone on my bonnet! But I don't have a BN1 post code, and most of my friends are envious of my lifestyle. But I have always been an individual.
I have been there and done it. Not again, never.
It seems to me the intelligent ones are leaving London down buying and ending up mortgage free, then the people who lived in Hove who were realising the issues have moved to larger or less expensive properties and are either more comfortable or mortgage free. I had a flat in Brighton sold for 1st more than I purchased and moved to Hove to a large Edwardian flat near the front, realised I couldn't enjoy living there with the lack of parking, vandalism and drunk defrost. So looked out of town. Sold up now I have a 5 bedroom house with off road parking and a garage a 120 foot rear garden and no mortgage, I don't have to work so hard, I know my kids are safe playing in the local vicinity and haven't come out to a road cone on my bonnet! But I don't have a BN1 post code, and most of my friends are envious of my lifestyle. But I have always been an individual. I have been there and done it. Not again, never. 156 IQ
  • Score: 1

1:58pm Sun 18 May 14

156 IQ says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you hit on an answer there, bomb Hove start again.......ha ha.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you hit on an answer there, bomb Hove start again.......ha ha. 156 IQ
  • Score: 3

2:04pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

156 IQ wrote:
It seems to me the intelligent ones are leaving London down buying and ending up mortgage free, then the people who lived in Hove who were realising the issues have moved to larger or less expensive properties and are either more comfortable or mortgage free. I had a flat in Brighton sold for 1st more than I purchased and moved to Hove to a large Edwardian flat near the front, realised I couldn't enjoy living there with the lack of parking, vandalism and drunk defrost. So looked out of town. Sold up now I have a 5 bedroom house with off road parking and a garage a 120 foot rear garden and no mortgage, I don't have to work so hard, I know my kids are safe playing in the local vicinity and haven't come out to a road cone on my bonnet! But I don't have a BN1 post code, and most of my friends are envious of my lifestyle. But I have always been an individual.
I have been there and done it. Not again, never.
If most of your friends are envious of your lifestyle, why don't they just do the same thing as you then? Buy properties in less expensive areas and have more room and somewhere to park their car in front of their house? And not everyone has kids, so not everyone aspires to a big house with a big garden and somewhere to park their car outside in the driveway. Some young professionals just want to live somewhere with an abundance of restaurants, clubs, wine bars, festivals, and a culturally hip vibe. They don't care about big gardens, et al. I was like that once too, when I was younger! As you get older, your priorities perhaps change a bit. That doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid or just post-code obsessed. I think you're talking about a fairly small sector of society, young people who have been born into wealth and privilege, and get off on having an SW1 postcode and personalised number plates on their Porsche. The type of people you see on "Made in Chelsea"! (And no I don't watch that rubbish.)
[quote][p][bold]156 IQ[/bold] wrote: It seems to me the intelligent ones are leaving London down buying and ending up mortgage free, then the people who lived in Hove who were realising the issues have moved to larger or less expensive properties and are either more comfortable or mortgage free. I had a flat in Brighton sold for 1st more than I purchased and moved to Hove to a large Edwardian flat near the front, realised I couldn't enjoy living there with the lack of parking, vandalism and drunk defrost. So looked out of town. Sold up now I have a 5 bedroom house with off road parking and a garage a 120 foot rear garden and no mortgage, I don't have to work so hard, I know my kids are safe playing in the local vicinity and haven't come out to a road cone on my bonnet! But I don't have a BN1 post code, and most of my friends are envious of my lifestyle. But I have always been an individual. I have been there and done it. Not again, never.[/p][/quote]If most of your friends are envious of your lifestyle, why don't they just do the same thing as you then? Buy properties in less expensive areas and have more room and somewhere to park their car in front of their house? And not everyone has kids, so not everyone aspires to a big house with a big garden and somewhere to park their car outside in the driveway. Some young professionals just want to live somewhere with an abundance of restaurants, clubs, wine bars, festivals, and a culturally hip vibe. They don't care about big gardens, et al. I was like that once too, when I was younger! As you get older, your priorities perhaps change a bit. That doesn't mean that everyone else is stupid or just post-code obsessed. I think you're talking about a fairly small sector of society, young people who have been born into wealth and privilege, and get off on having an SW1 postcode and personalised number plates on their Porsche. The type of people you see on "Made in Chelsea"! (And no I don't watch that rubbish.) KarenT
  • Score: 2

3:15pm Sun 18 May 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you just make my point about building more social housing.

Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you just make my point about building more social housing. Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you just make my point about building more social housing.

Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.
Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you just make my point about building more social housing. Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.[/p][/quote]Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it! KarenT
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

And incidentally would you want to live in one of these low-cost manufactured housing estates on the outskirts of town, given the choice? They will, given what they are, be places that no one really aspires to live, other than low-income families and the homeless. They will be ghettos.
And incidentally would you want to live in one of these low-cost manufactured housing estates on the outskirts of town, given the choice? They will, given what they are, be places that no one really aspires to live, other than low-income families and the homeless. They will be ghettos. KarenT
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Sun 18 May 14

s&k says...

bluemonday wrote:
s&k wrote:
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response
ER, cheaper housing, better countryside, better beer
[quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east![/p][/quote]and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response[/p][/quote]ER, cheaper housing, better countryside, better beer s&k
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Sun 18 May 14

Zeta Function says...

There are lots of ghost homes in Hove. Properties where no one lives apart from a holiday, or occasional weekend, or not at all! There are 3 in the small block I live in.

These homes should be freed up. Perhaps a 9 month occupancy rule, and a ghost home tax.

Simply building more homes won't solve the supply problem. Those who can afford will buy. Those on low incomes will be forced into cheaply built council properties designed to last 5 years or less. The middle class homeless will protest.
There are lots of ghost homes in Hove. Properties where no one lives apart from a holiday, or occasional weekend, or not at all! There are 3 in the small block I live in. These homes should be freed up. Perhaps a 9 month occupancy rule, and a ghost home tax. Simply building more homes won't solve the supply problem. Those who can afford will buy. Those on low incomes will be forced into cheaply built council properties designed to last 5 years or less. The middle class homeless will protest. Zeta Function
  • Score: 1

6:51pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

s&k wrote:
bluemonday wrote:
s&k wrote:
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response
ER, cheaper housing, better countryside, better beer
So where do you live? Bradford? Barnsley? Why are you commenting on a Brighton newspaper site then?
[quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east![/p][/quote]and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response[/p][/quote]ER, cheaper housing, better countryside, better beer[/p][/quote]So where do you live? Bradford? Barnsley? Why are you commenting on a Brighton newspaper site then? KarenT
  • Score: 1

8:26pm Sun 18 May 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you just make my point about building more social housing.

Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.
Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it!
It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you just make my point about building more social housing. Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.[/p][/quote]Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it![/p][/quote]It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

8:31pm Sun 18 May 14

HJarrs says...

KarenT wrote:
And incidentally would you want to live in one of these low-cost manufactured housing estates on the outskirts of town, given the choice? They will, given what they are, be places that no one really aspires to live, other than low-income families and the homeless. They will be ghettos.
I have in mind developments like Bedzed or numerous high quality social housing developments I have seen on the continent. Their is no need for manufactured housing to be ugly, unsympathetic to the environment or unpleasant to live in. Indeed the first council housing to be built in B&H for over 20 years looks to be far better than the shabby rented Victorian housing in the surrounding streets.

You definitely have a downer on social housing.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: And incidentally would you want to live in one of these low-cost manufactured housing estates on the outskirts of town, given the choice? They will, given what they are, be places that no one really aspires to live, other than low-income families and the homeless. They will be ghettos.[/p][/quote]I have in mind developments like Bedzed or numerous high quality social housing developments I have seen on the continent. Their is no need for manufactured housing to be ugly, unsympathetic to the environment or unpleasant to live in. Indeed the first council housing to be built in B&H for over 20 years looks to be far better than the shabby rented Victorian housing in the surrounding streets. You definitely have a downer on social housing. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Sun 18 May 14

Wide Bertha says...

bluemonday wrote:
s&k wrote:
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response
people say hello to people ...
[quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east![/p][/quote]and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response[/p][/quote]people say hello to people ... Wide Bertha
  • Score: 1

9:30pm Sun 18 May 14

buny8 says...

Move to Worthing! The place is changing rapidly. Every week I notice changes; the odd artisan bakery/ cafe/ independent shop... etc. It's no Hove but the schools are great and the gardens are huge! Property isn't as cheap as used to be here and houses are selling within 24hrs but I guess that's just the way things are in the South East at the moment.
Move to Worthing! The place is changing rapidly. Every week I notice changes; the odd artisan bakery/ cafe/ independent shop... etc. It's no Hove but the schools are great and the gardens are huge! Property isn't as cheap as used to be here and houses are selling within 24hrs but I guess that's just the way things are in the South East at the moment. buny8
  • Score: 3

10:06pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
And incidentally would you want to live in one of these low-cost manufactured housing estates on the outskirts of town, given the choice? They will, given what they are, be places that no one really aspires to live, other than low-income families and the homeless. They will be ghettos.
I have in mind developments like Bedzed or numerous high quality social housing developments I have seen on the continent. Their is no need for manufactured housing to be ugly, unsympathetic to the environment or unpleasant to live in. Indeed the first council housing to be built in B&H for over 20 years looks to be far better than the shabby rented Victorian housing in the surrounding streets.

You definitely have a downer on social housing.
No problem with social housing... Just don't believe it will address a much bigger, multi-faceted problem, nor do I think it will work, given building and space constraints. It's a pipe-dream, and given that in most cases these estates will be on the outskirts of established residential areas, they will be ghettoised and become places that only the low-paid disadvantaged will be prepared to live in. I don't see them as something that ultimately would benefit society as a whole, despite the shorter-term problems they would address. Two-tiers of property ownership would just enhance divisiveness within communities. Now ask me WHAT the answer is, and I'll tell you that I don't believe there is one anymore. Perhaps fatalistic but that's what I think.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: And incidentally would you want to live in one of these low-cost manufactured housing estates on the outskirts of town, given the choice? They will, given what they are, be places that no one really aspires to live, other than low-income families and the homeless. They will be ghettos.[/p][/quote]I have in mind developments like Bedzed or numerous high quality social housing developments I have seen on the continent. Their is no need for manufactured housing to be ugly, unsympathetic to the environment or unpleasant to live in. Indeed the first council housing to be built in B&H for over 20 years looks to be far better than the shabby rented Victorian housing in the surrounding streets. You definitely have a downer on social housing.[/p][/quote]No problem with social housing... Just don't believe it will address a much bigger, multi-faceted problem, nor do I think it will work, given building and space constraints. It's a pipe-dream, and given that in most cases these estates will be on the outskirts of established residential areas, they will be ghettoised and become places that only the low-paid disadvantaged will be prepared to live in. I don't see them as something that ultimately would benefit society as a whole, despite the shorter-term problems they would address. Two-tiers of property ownership would just enhance divisiveness within communities. Now ask me WHAT the answer is, and I'll tell you that I don't believe there is one anymore. Perhaps fatalistic but that's what I think. KarenT
  • Score: 2

10:08pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

Wide Bertha wrote:
bluemonday wrote:
s&k wrote:
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response
people say hello to people ...
Must take them an awfully long time to walk to the shops.
[quote][p][bold]Wide Bertha[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east![/p][/quote]and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response[/p][/quote]people say hello to people ...[/p][/quote]Must take them an awfully long time to walk to the shops. KarenT
  • Score: 0

10:11pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you just make my point about building more social housing.

Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.
Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it!
It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.
Well I don't think "Green policies" are going to be relevant anymore soon anyway, so I guess it's a mute point.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you just make my point about building more social housing. Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.[/p][/quote]Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it![/p][/quote]It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.[/p][/quote]Well I don't think "Green policies" are going to be relevant anymore soon anyway, so I guess it's a mute point. KarenT
  • Score: 4

10:15pm Sun 18 May 14

tom servo says...

KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you just make my point about building more social housing.

Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.
Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it!
It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.
Well I don't think "Green policies" are going to be relevant anymore soon anyway, so I guess it's a mute point.
You mean a moot point.... not a mute point.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you just make my point about building more social housing. Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.[/p][/quote]Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it![/p][/quote]It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.[/p][/quote]Well I don't think "Green policies" are going to be relevant anymore soon anyway, so I guess it's a mute point.[/p][/quote]You mean a moot point.... not a mute point. tom servo
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Sun 18 May 14

KarenT says...

tom servo wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
KarenT wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits.

The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.
Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime.

It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy.

Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???
I think you just make my point about building more social housing.

Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.
Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it!
It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.
Well I don't think "Green policies" are going to be relevant anymore soon anyway, so I guess it's a mute point.
You mean a moot point.... not a mute point.
No, mute, as in 'dumb'! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]tom servo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: This morning even the Bank of England is worried about the overheating housing market, due to a lack of housing. Governments, Labour, Conservative and Liberal could have funded councils to start building hundreds of thousands of high quality council houses to ease the recession from 2008 onwards. This would have helped keep rents down and funded by preventing vast sums of public money, in the form of housing benefit, funding private Landlord's profits. The other news today? The richest 500 have seen their wealth rise by 15% last year, I bet there are plenty of big landlords and land owners in there.[/p][/quote]Again, where are you going to build these houses? What about lack of infrastructure and social services? There will STILL be two tiers of property ownership because the council and affordable housing will be built further and further outside the city, cuz there's no where to build them locally. So those low-cost housing areas will become quite ghettoised - poor eduction, high unemployment and crime. It was different in London for many years, especially after the 2nd World War and all the destruction that left behind. Plenty of room to build. It's why you can live in the most exclusive areas in London, but still be surrounded by council towers and high crime. But now even London is running out of places to build. It's not just about funding! And I'm not so sure the rent cap idea is a great one. Not that I'm not in favour of keeping rents affordable - but I just believe that if there isn't enough money to be made to make being a buy-to-let landlord worthwhile, there will simply be less people investing in it. So you have less rentals available to those who need them and just can't afford to buy. Property prices are NEVER going to drop to the extent where suddenly the majority of people can afford to buy. We may have come close to that for a short while when Thatcher was in power, with so many being able to buy their own council houses. But look what that has led to!!!! Those days are gone forever. So we need rentals! Can't you see, there is no sweeping answers, in fact I don't believe there are any answers, looking at it pragmatically. And by the way, I wish I was one of those "Richest 500"! Who doesn't???[/p][/quote]I think you just make my point about building more social housing. Many in the Southeast cannot afford to buy, rents are so high that we subsidise working families with housing benefit to live in very modest housing. You can build a good quality 3 bed house for £120k and I recall that the council has identified potential for an additional 1000+ properties on its own land. So, that is 1000 high quality social properties which cost less than £600 a month to finance, way less than the current private market rate(less than half round my way). Public money building public infrastructure and not going into private sector profit. This needs to be repeated across the country, coupled with industrial and infrastructure projects outside the Southeast to produce attractive jobs and housing to relieve housing pressure here. Just part of the solution and we should have started in 2008, but we have failed to do so. Had we started in 2008 as a Keynsian response to the collapse of the financial sector, we would now have started the reap the benefits.[/p][/quote]Well maybe you should run for office and make all that happen. All you need is public confidence and then lots of votes. That's how Thatcher did it![/p][/quote]It's Green policy for the city, but the government is preventing raising funds.[/p][/quote]Well I don't think "Green policies" are going to be relevant anymore soon anyway, so I guess it's a mute point.[/p][/quote]You mean a moot point.... not a mute point.[/p][/quote]No, mute, as in 'dumb'! ;-) KarenT
  • Score: 1

8:29am Mon 19 May 14

Made In Sussex says...

buny8 wrote:
Move to Worthing! The place is changing rapidly. Every week I notice changes; the odd artisan bakery/ cafe/ independent shop... etc. It's no Hove but the schools are great and the gardens are huge! Property isn't as cheap as used to be here and houses are selling within 24hrs but I guess that's just the way things are in the South East at the moment.
Please no..stay put in Brighton and hove!!!
[quote][p][bold]buny8[/bold] wrote: Move to Worthing! The place is changing rapidly. Every week I notice changes; the odd artisan bakery/ cafe/ independent shop... etc. It's no Hove but the schools are great and the gardens are huge! Property isn't as cheap as used to be here and houses are selling within 24hrs but I guess that's just the way things are in the South East at the moment.[/p][/quote]Please no..stay put in Brighton and hove!!! Made In Sussex
  • Score: 2

10:11am Mon 19 May 14

Fairfax Aches says...

How far are people prepared to go to commute?? The door to door commute time Hove-London must surely be over 90 mins EACH WAY. That's 15 hours commuting per week, or approx. 1 FULL MONTH per year. I'm not sure any wage is worth that forfeiture of life time.
How far are people prepared to go to commute?? The door to door commute time Hove-London must surely be over 90 mins EACH WAY. That's 15 hours commuting per week, or approx. 1 FULL MONTH per year. I'm not sure any wage is worth that forfeiture of life time. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 3

10:35am Mon 19 May 14

buny8 says...

I agree, Made in Sussex. Stay put in B&H... I do, however, feel a bit hypocritical as an x Londoner and x Hovite!
I agree, Made in Sussex. Stay put in B&H... I do, however, feel a bit hypocritical as an x Londoner and x Hovite! buny8
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Mon 19 May 14

NickBrt says...

Social housing? As long as I don't have to walk past I suppose its OK. After all, servants have to live somewhere.
Social housing? As long as I don't have to walk past I suppose its OK. After all, servants have to live somewhere. NickBrt
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Mon 19 May 14

PorkyChopper says...

Yuppies? I look forward to a story that uses the word "bonking" and "gazumping" soon.
Yuppies? I look forward to a story that uses the word "bonking" and "gazumping" soon. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 1

7:56pm Mon 19 May 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Although Bill Randall is an avuncular chap, he his a useless housing strategist and often gives ludicrous sound bites.
Last week he was celebrating more than 1500 homes in the city being turned into student bedsits failing to realise that they don't pay council tax and these houses are often neglected if they remain as crash pad housing for many years, only basic repairs are ever carried out and also communities look run down with rubbish strewn about and gardens neglected. We have 9,000 more students arriving all using services with no investment in supporting infrastructure and none paying council tax. He thinks that's a good idea? Weird.
Then we have the shipping containers being rented to the homeless at £650 a month, which equates to £1950 a month for three people when a house can be rented at just over a grand. Another scheme pushing up house prices, shoving the poor into trashy accommodation and ripping off the tax payer.
The real threat to the city is the number of families leaving. Young families spend and make significant life purchases. Students and non workers borrow to spend and also do not make significant purchase such as white goods etc.
Mr Randall think before you speak or master your subject.
Bill Randall is not acting as weirdly as it seems at first sight. More like true to form and self interest !

Being a Green he has a vested interest in importing as many potential green voters as possible and, let's face it, student bedsits are a fertile ground for our green zealots.

You, of course, have made several perfectly good points in my view, none of which would occur to or concern our idiotic green slime.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Although Bill Randall is an avuncular chap, he his a useless housing strategist and often gives ludicrous sound bites. Last week he was celebrating more than 1500 homes in the city being turned into student bedsits failing to realise that they don't pay council tax and these houses are often neglected if they remain as crash pad housing for many years, only basic repairs are ever carried out and also communities look run down with rubbish strewn about and gardens neglected. We have 9,000 more students arriving all using services with no investment in supporting infrastructure and none paying council tax. He thinks that's a good idea? Weird. Then we have the shipping containers being rented to the homeless at £650 a month, which equates to £1950 a month for three people when a house can be rented at just over a grand. Another scheme pushing up house prices, shoving the poor into trashy accommodation and ripping off the tax payer. The real threat to the city is the number of families leaving. Young families spend and make significant life purchases. Students and non workers borrow to spend and also do not make significant purchase such as white goods etc. Mr Randall think before you speak or master your subject.[/p][/quote]Bill Randall is not acting as weirdly as it seems at first sight. More like true to form and self interest ! Being a Green he has a vested interest in importing as many potential green voters as possible and, let's face it, student bedsits are a fertile ground for our green zealots. You, of course, have made several perfectly good points in my view, none of which would occur to or concern our idiotic green slime. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 3

3:51pm Tue 20 May 14

homewood says...

Hovegeek wrote:
homewood wrote:
King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.
What's your problem with King & Chasemore? You commented on a story regarding police CID officers not being qualified due to staff shortages and somehow related that to King & Chasemore?

Are you a competitor seeking to damage their reputation? If so, the Argus website really won't generate the traffic needed to make an impact.

I just bought a house marketed by King & Chasemore and they were absolutely fine. We got the house at a reasonable price and they were relatively efficient in dealing with the vendor.

If you have a problem with them, take it up with them, don't hijack tenuously related (and in some cases completely unrelated) comment threads just to vent your rage.
Ere, no I didn't make that comment. This is the first time I mentioned King and Chasemore. Nothing personal never had any direct dealings with them, but speaking to various other agents in Hove, none of their competitors like them, 5 different agents in Hove have said they over value flats and have no idea what they are doing as they have no experienced staff.
[quote][p][bold]Hovegeek[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]homewood[/bold] wrote: King and chasemore Hove still massively over valuing flats doesnt help.[/p][/quote]What's your problem with King & Chasemore? You commented on a story regarding police CID officers not being qualified due to staff shortages and somehow related that to King & Chasemore? Are you a competitor seeking to damage their reputation? If so, the Argus website really won't generate the traffic needed to make an impact. I just bought a house marketed by King & Chasemore and they were absolutely fine. We got the house at a reasonable price and they were relatively efficient in dealing with the vendor. If you have a problem with them, take it up with them, don't hijack tenuously related (and in some cases completely unrelated) comment threads just to vent your rage.[/p][/quote]Ere, no I didn't make that comment. This is the first time I mentioned King and Chasemore. Nothing personal never had any direct dealings with them, but speaking to various other agents in Hove, none of their competitors like them, 5 different agents in Hove have said they over value flats and have no idea what they are doing as they have no experienced staff. homewood
  • Score: 1

10:34pm Wed 21 May 14

PorkyChopper says...

KarenT wrote:
Wide Bertha wrote:
bluemonday wrote:
s&k wrote:
My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east!
and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response
people say hello to people ...
Must take them an awfully long time to walk to the shops.
They don't have shops oop north. Apart from Arkwright's Open All Hours shop, they barter stuff, like half a potato for a picture of Gracie Fields, or a flat cap for a story about how good life is down South.
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wide Bertha[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluemonday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s&k[/bold] wrote: My advice, go north and get out of the overcrowded **** heap that's the south east![/p][/quote]and what do you think is so great about the north,if you answer me i'll give you a response[/p][/quote]people say hello to people ...[/p][/quote]Must take them an awfully long time to walk to the shops.[/p][/quote]They don't have shops oop north. Apart from Arkwright's Open All Hours shop, they barter stuff, like half a potato for a picture of Gracie Fields, or a flat cap for a story about how good life is down South. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 5

5:53pm Thu 22 May 14

heartthrob says...

Its all about Shoreham Beach these days. Make the move
Its all about Shoreham Beach these days. Make the move heartthrob
  • Score: -2

7:19pm Thu 22 May 14

KarenT says...

Fairfax Aches wrote:
How far are people prepared to go to commute?? The door to door commute time Hove-London must surely be over 90 mins EACH WAY. That's 15 hours commuting per week, or approx. 1 FULL MONTH per year. I'm not sure any wage is worth that forfeiture of life time.
And the solution is....?
[quote][p][bold]Fairfax Aches[/bold] wrote: How far are people prepared to go to commute?? The door to door commute time Hove-London must surely be over 90 mins EACH WAY. That's 15 hours commuting per week, or approx. 1 FULL MONTH per year. I'm not sure any wage is worth that forfeiture of life time.[/p][/quote]And the solution is....? KarenT
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree