Homeless crisis?

[bruno22rf]

Social scobydog - my personal thoughts are that if you work for it and buy it then nobody should be able to touch it - as for mental issues in our midst, couple of weeks back I found myself in A&E with my son - there were at least 50 people waiting for triage as we were being seen by a Doctor - in the bay next to us was a young  man demanding to have his feet washed - he could not do it at home because "the bad demons wont let me use the sink" - every time they tried to discharge him he screamed like a banshee till eventually they just left him wasting a bay - wonder what the 50+ people behind him would have thought?

Edited August 5, 2018 by bruno22rf

[AVB]

5 hours ago, oowee said:

Prove it please, where is the evidence for Britain? Or can you see it with your own eyes? ? Maybe very high in some London Boroughs but otherwise see the report above. On what basis do you think we have a population surplus? What should the number be? 

Taking into account countries with population above 10,000,000 England is the fourth most densely populated country in the world! So where do you want it to be? The most densely populated? 

[oowee]

14 minutes ago, AVB said:

Taking into account countries with population above 10,000,000 England is the fourth most densely populated country in the world! So where do you want it to be? The most densely populated? 

There are many ways to measure the density of population and then rank it from a list of x y or z. I am not sure that a particular ranking position is meaningful. When responding to the assertion that Britain is full I am simply pointing out that only 2% of the country is built upon, add in total world density ranking terms we would be ranked 53 it seems we are hardly bursting at the seams. 

 

[old man]

21 minutes ago, oowee said:

There are many ways to measure the density of population and then rank it from a list of x y or z. I am not sure that a particular ranking position is meaningful. When responding to the assertion that Britain is full I am simply pointing out that only 2% of the country is built upon, add in total world density ranking terms we would be ranked 53 it seems we are hardly bursting at the seams. 

 

Well mate, you must have plenty of unspoiled land by you? Every pony field being built on here and the only areas not up for building have already been built on.

[Bigbob]

Its happening here all the small villages are now being built into each other, its easier done as all the facilities are there for a hook up rather than build new sewers , elctric mains ect and another problem is NImBY  everybody agrees we need lots of affordable houses then its Not  In My Back Yard so what can you do ?.

[oldypigeonpopper]

6 minutes ago, old man said:

Well mate, you must have plenty of unspoiled land by you? Every pony field being built on here and the only areas not up for building have already been built on.

hello, the vale is the same every bit of land thats deemed suitable no matter how small or large within the town or village boundries, some so big like another village,  yet few have had the extra capacity sewage system, or clean water pipe upgrade, the village i grew up in has a constant sewage tanker rota     

6 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

Its happening here all the small villages are now being built into each other, its easier done as all the facilities are there for a hook up rather than build new sewers , elctric mains ect and another problem is NImBY  everybody agrees we need lots of affordable houses then its Not  In My Back Yard so what can you do ?.

hello, thats the problem bigbob they are mostly not affordable,

[oowee]

We need to build but build on existing cities towns. The infrastructure is there and it saves us building on the next village and the next adding to the transport burden. The green belt noose stops us doing that and development leap frogs to the next available spot. The Government could buy up large tranches of land on the city edges and build (using private sector) using the uplift values to fund it. The down side is the Tory voters don't want it in our back yard and no home owner wants it as prices could stagnate / decline. 

[scobydog]

Quote

 

 

2 hours ago, bruno22rf said:

Social scobydog - my personal thoughts are that if you work for it and buy it then nobody should be able to touch it - as for mental issues in our midst, couple of weeks back I found myself in A&E with my son - there were at least 50 people waiting for triage as we were being seen by a Doctor - in the bay next to us was a young  man demanding to have his feet washed - he could not do it at home because "the bad demons wont let me use the sink" - every time they tried to discharge him he screamed like a banshee till eventually they just left him wasting a bay - wonder what the 50+ people behind him would have thought?

Fair enough,  one of the things I think the Govt could do is buy up large empty warehouses/ office buildings and turn them into 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments for people / families living in hostels and cheap private hotels, that way give them some semblance of normality in their lives. Around me large office buildings on industrial estates are being converted to apartments at £200k plus each, if the councils/Govt got in 1st that would be a relatively inexpensive way of housing people, obviously just my opinion.

 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, scobydog said:

 

Fair enough,  one of the things I think the Govt could do is buy up large empty warehouses/ office buildings and turn them into 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments for people / families living in hostels and cheap private hotels, that way give them some semblance of normality in their lives. Around me large office buildings on industrial estates are being converted to apartments at £200k plus each, if the councils/Govt got in 1st that would be a relatively inexpensive way of housing people, obviously just my opinion.

 

We tried some of that in Brum. It works well for offices particularly where they are city centre but not so good for industrial, where it's often cheaper to knock it down. Problem with a lot of it even when empty is it's still on lease so worth more empty than cleared. Ultimately you loose employment land.

[scobydog]

55 minutes ago, oowee said:

We need to build but build on existing cities towns. The infrastructure is there and it saves us building on the next village and the next adding to the transport burden. The green belt noose stops us doing that and development leap frogs to the next available spot. The Government could buy up large tranches of land on the city edges and build (using private sector) using the uplift values to fund it. The down side is the Tory voters don't want it in our back yard and no home owner wants it as prices could stagnate / decline. 

Oowee, it isn't just Tory voters by along way, I lived in Gorton M/cr for a while and nobody wanted extra building on some un used land next to some footy pitches, iirc it was for less than 100 houses, that is a staunchly Labour area.

[oowee]

Just now, scobydog said:

Oowee, it isn't just Tory voters by along way, I lived in Gorton M/cr for a while and nobody wanted extra building on some un used land next to some footy pitches, iirc it was for less than 100 houses, that is a staunchly Labour area.

Yep it's pretty hard. No one wants it i guess but we all need it. 

[scobydog]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

We tried some of that in Brum. It works well for offices particularly where they are city centre but not so good for industrial, where it's often cheaper to knock it down. Problem with a lot of it even when empty is it's still on lease so worth more empty than cleared. Ultimately you loose employment land.

See where your coming from, but the developers will do it anyway if no one else does.

1 minute ago, oowee said:

Yep it's pretty hard. No one wants it i guess but we all need it. 

+1

[scobydog]

1 hour ago, Bigbob said:

Its happening here all the small villages are now being built into each other, its easier done as all the facilities are there for a hook up rather than build new sewers , elctric mains ect and another problem is NImBY  everybody agrees we need lots of affordable houses then its Not  In My Back Yard so what can you do ?.

We have it near us, a village with @200 houses is having an estate of 3000 minimum over 10 years built around it, they start at £1/2 million and rise from there, thing is they're selling like hot cakes especially the more expensive ones.

[old man]

19 hours ago, oowee said:

We need to build but build on existing cities towns. The infrastructure is there and it saves us building on the next village and the next adding to the transport burden. The green belt noose stops us doing that and development leap frogs to the next available spot. The Government could buy up large tranches of land on the city edges and build (using private sector) using the uplift values to fund it. The down side is the Tory voters don't want it in our back yard and no home owner wants it as prices could stagnate / decline. 

I thought that this had already been done and was the cause of inner city tensions, certainly a problem here.

 

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, old man said:

I thought that this had already been done and was the cause of inner city tensions, certainly a problem here.

 

The big builders dont like the inner city brownfield sites.
Even though the land is cheap, they know that 'the house in the country' will make twice as much money, and be damned with the infrastructure and commute.
Be damned with the green belt too, they roll over it in Nottingham like its not there, despite there being masses of brownfield being derelict for 10 -20 years.

As much as we talk about housing shortage, particularly 'affordable' homes, the builders do whatever they like.
And thats building large unaffordable houses, 5 miles outside the city, on farmland and greenbelt, the council rarely opposes the planning apps, citing the 'need for homes' while the local villages and communities protests are ignored.
This has happened many many times around here, sometimes being sent to higher courts to be examined, the builders always get their way.

[old man]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The big builders dont like the inner city brownfield sites.
Even though the land is cheap, they know that 'the house in the country' will make twice as much money, and be damned with the infrastructure and commute.
Be damned with the green belt too, they roll over it in Nottingham like its not there, despite there being masses of brownfield being derelict for 10 -20 years.

As much as we talk about housing shortage, particularly 'affordable' homes, the builders do whatever they like.
And thats building large unaffordable houses, 5 miles outside the city, on farmland and greenbelt, the council rarely opposes the planning apps, citing the 'need for homes' while the local villages and communities protests are ignored.
This has happened many many times around here, sometimes being sent to higher courts to be examined, the builders always get their way.

My personal thoughts about councils and planning.

Planning is a farce! Useless and toothless.

Councils love the situation as it generates more income from property and gives them more money.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, old man said:

My personal thoughts about councils and planning.

Planning is a farce! Useless and toothless.

Councils love the situation as it generates more income from property and gives them more money.

All true, Im also of the opinion a few envelopes stuffed with cash get passed around a bit too.

[Vince Green]

Why do we need to build houses to provide homes for people we don't need in the first place? There is a much simpler solution

[JohnfromUK]

31 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Why do we need to build houses to provide homes for people we don't need in the first place? There is a much simpler solution

Almost everything in the world is geared up for this phenomenon called 'GROWTH'.  Economic growth, population growth, company growth, wages growth, production growth.  They are all essential to the way our rulers (capiltalist, socialist/communist, etc.) see the measure of their success.

It is of course not sustainable in the long term, but everyone ignores that.  In due course, water (for drinking and irrigation) food, and various raw materials as well as housing and cultivatable land will all become increasingly in short supply.  There are too many people on the planet.

I'm no 'green', but one doesn't have to be either 'green', or a genius to realise it isn't sustainable.  But who will take firm action to turn the world population from growth into decline?  China has taken some measures.  We are crazy subsidising the production of children, but even the austerity of George Osborne saw it 'protected'.  It is politically not possible to remove (too many in receipt of it).  What potentially should be done is to limit it to the first two children - but how that works in 'step parent' situations is a minefield.

[oldypigeonpopper]

43 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Why do we need to build houses to provide homes for people we don't need in the first place? There is a much simpler solution

hello, yes and a one way ticket?

[oowee]

2 hours ago, old man said:

I thought that this had already been done and was the cause of inner city tensions, certainly a problem here.

 

What causes the inner city tensions? Building on the edge of towns? 

27 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Almost everything in the world is geared up for this phenomenon called 'GROWTH'.  Economic growth, population growth, company growth, wages growth, production growth.  They are all essential to the way our rulers (capiltalist, socialist/communist, etc.) see the measure of their success.

It is of course not sustainable in the long term, but everyone ignores that.  In due course, water (for drinking and irrigation) food, and various raw materials as well as housing and cultivatable land will all become increasingly in short supply.  There are too many people on the planet.

I'm no 'green', but one doesn't have to be either 'green', or a genius to realise it isn't sustainable.  But who will take firm action to turn the world population from growth into decline?  China has taken some measures.  We are crazy subsidising the production of children, but even the austerity of George Osborne saw it 'protected'.  It is politically not possible to remove (too many in receipt of it).  What potentially should be done is to limit it to the first two children - but how that works in 'step parent' situations is a minefield.

Your right of course in the long term. We rely on science to keep us ahead but there is a limit and we are still using the easy resources. What is too many people? Too many in some areas for the resources certainly and you could argue that we are quickly heading to the buffers but for now we crack on. Either we co-operate long term, with ultimately a global plan for resource use and planning or we fight over it. 

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Why do we need to build houses to provide homes for people we don't need in the first place? There is a much simpler solution

Who would that be? The old and the infirm? Those who are not productive? Surely we want homes for all our residents? 

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

All true, Im also of the opinion a few envelopes stuffed with cash get passed around a bit too.

Never in 30 years working with planning in 7 local authorities and 2 Government Departments have i seen a brown envelope stuffed with cash. 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

What is too many people? Too many in some areas for the resources certainly and you could argue that we are quickly heading to the buffers but for now we crack on.

IF (and it is a big IF), global warming takes off, and sea levels rise etc, there will be considerably less habitable land (and productive land), plus several major areas (Holland, Bangladesh, many coastal areas of the USA and Europe)/cities (London, New York, Paris, Amsterdam, Rotterdam) potentially uninhabitable.  We will very probably end up fighting for what is there - not a nice thought.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Almost everything in the world is geared up for this phenomenon called 'GROWTH'.  Economic growth, population growth, company growth, wages growth, production growth.  They are all essential to the way our rulers (capiltalist, socialist/communist, etc.) see the measure of their success.

It is of course not sustainable in the long term, but everyone ignores that.  In due course, water (for drinking and irrigation) food, and various raw materials as well as housing and cultivatable land will all become increasingly in short supply.  There are too many people on the planet.

I'm no 'green', but one doesn't have to be either 'green', or a genius to realise it isn't sustainable.  But who will take firm action to turn the world population from growth into decline?  China has taken some measures.  We are crazy subsidising the production of children, but even the austerity of George Osborne saw it 'protected'.  It is politically not possible to remove (too many in receipt of it).  What potentially should be done is to limit it to the first two children - but how that works in 'step parent' situations is a minefield.

There are too many people not pulling their weight  on the planet.

In the western world few countries have a problem with limiting birth rate to 2, many dont get anywhere near that.

The 3rd world on the other hand, will literally have as many as they can, sometimes its just a cultural or religious belief, but economically its a disaster, countries like Nigeria and other sub Saharan countries have massive over population, and lack the means or the infrastructure to support them, do they curtail their families, nope .
So they need space.

Europe , with Merkels open door policy in 2015 made all those dreams come true, now there are millions of Africans who believe the land of milk and honey beckons.

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

Never in 30 years working with planning in 7 local authorities and 2 Government Departments have i seen a brown envelope stuffed with cash. 

Well you would say that wouldnt you? ??

[Dougy]

Simple solution to stop the population growth is stop reproducing. Or at least limit the amount of sprogs you can have, and if you dont have a job then no kids. 

Just ban sex completely. 

Mind you i am sure that heterosexual relationships are on the decrease these days, so we may be OK in the next 100 years. 

[oowee]

Just now, Rewulf said:

 

Well you would say that wouldnt you? ??

? I am afraid to say I have to agree with you there