But in the absence of planning controls many properties were sold with very rigourous covenants, which many residents associations try and exploit today. On some of the private estates on Coombe Hill (Kingston, SW London) any alterations to the outside of your property have to be approved by the Residents Association. Tough if you've crossed the chairman as there's no appeal.
I am not about stupid estate agents. A developers has a mixed bag of 50-50 eco and non-eco on the same development for the same price and similar spec. Which ones are going to sell, well?
Painting your front door is very different to the planning system. Covenants were put in as there was no planning system. People made up their own. It worked to a degree. Sometime they put in aspects that made it easy to rip off people such as ransom strips. these are illegal in Canada, and should be here. One poster has bought a field so no house will be next to him. Fine, I have no problems with that. The ransom strips were put in, so the landowner could sell the land, and still have control and potentially rip people off for running services across his 6 inches of land.
You may not directly, but this is a naive view. The shareholders are typically pension and other managed funds, not to mention the contribution of corporation tax to the exchequer.
That is how it is, however. It would be pretty difficult to legislate people to like Milton Keynes.
It isn't balls, but I don't disagree with you. As I said, people perceive their houses as their major investment and protection, for right or from wrong. This results in being risk averse in that area. You can't legislate against human nature either.
There is more than adequate monoplies control legislation as it is.
I didn't know that Ottawa had jurisdiction in the UK. You learn something new every day.
I think that it would be about the only way.....
The two are inextricably linked. It's called the free market.
Why indeed. The economic drivers are not there.
I wish that they would repeal most of the garbage regulations and stealth taxes introduced since 1997.
I very much doubt whether there will be meaningful land reform in our lifetimes.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Exactly. Very succinctly put.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
You missed the point yet again.
Well seeing as it is a boom town/city and they are short of houses you naive view of the world is once a again off mark.
Once again mossed the point.
You are right. Just as well we have Johnny then.
Free market? about 15 companies build about 85% of all homes. Monopolies.
Exactly, so the government should force change through.
I hope they keep them except the taxes as LVT should be introduced.
If, in 1988 you said that the Soviet empire would be dismantled in a few years with Russia apply to join NATO you would have found a van pull with men in white coats pulling you in. And os that exactly what happened.
Land re-distribution is taking place on a small scale in Scotland right now.
But wrong.
It's very much the point in terms of whether anything, right or wrong, will change.
Everywhere is short of houses, it is alleged. The majority of people don't live in new towns or would wish to do so.
We'll have to agree to differ on that.
His boss sees him as a liability, but then he's a snot, of course.
Nothing close to it. The authorities became interested in the prospect of less than five supermarket chains. Fifteen construction firms is not.
it's exactly why it shouldn't.
Very unlikely to happen, so purely academic.
The Soviet empire was doomed from the outset, as are all government controlled societies sooner or later. Yet this is what you advocate.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
That is true.
becausedon't have many of them.
They would, tat is why MK is booming and peopel want to live there.
Johnny is not a snot. He went to Oxford for a month or two to do a course.
Monopolies.
It is.
You are confused.
Missed the point again. A clear inability to focus
I'm not sure that that's the reason.
I am not sure about that either.
On that, I'll agree to differ.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Stop making things up. MK is the greenest town/city I have ever been to. It is full of parks and woods and has a longer shoreline than Jersey with all the lakes it has.
Nothing being made up. I simply said that I am not sure about people liking new towns.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
You mean you have no idea whatsoever.
That's the justification given when governments want to legislate in that they can convince themselves that they can direct it in a small and practical place and have an effect. That is delusory.
This would appear to be a classic chicken and egg situation.
It is a leap of faith to suggest that people would flock to eco homes
- they are simply not high on the agenda. There are a bunch of issues that will need to be addressed before meaningful change will happen. Availability is but one of them.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
On that I will agree to differ.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
You are mad. Perfect examples are the car and construction industries which do not deliver. Then our electected representatives have to act on our behalf.
Missed the point again.
It hasn't sunk in yet after saying it many times. Peo;el have not been exposed to eco homes yet. Duh!
What are the others?
You missed the point. Legislating for the construction industry to have to build all, or even a proportion of eco houses is not going to necessarily make people buy them. Such a notion is a gross simplification.
I'm aware of that, but I do not believe that simply making something available means that people will buy it.
The graveyards are littered with products that somebody thought was a great idea but which did not sell because that somebody didn't think through or foresee all the issues.
You can look at my posts from earlier in this thread, or Tony's quote from earlier, which was from a sustainable housing organisation. The points are essentially the same.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
If all house built are eco then the populous would have no choice.
If only eco is available then they have to buy it.
Eco is a great idea and will never go away. I do seen that some nut would want a heating system so as to pay £2000 a year for no apparent reason. he will probably end up in a rubber room though.
It's populace, and I think you just demonstrated the point that legislation does not drive progress. It would take centuries for that choice to disappear because of the existing housing base.
... and existing properties?
I'm sure it is and I am sure that the technology, economics and marketing on it will eventually become more broadly accepted.
Well, it appears that in general people don't agree with your premise for right or wrong. Eco is not high on their agenda.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Perhaps, but Gordon Brown's company car tax changes (of which I am a major beneficiary) have changed what is being made (imagine a diesel BMW or Jaguar 10 years back) and what people are buying.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required