Brighton is 5th least affordable city in UK

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

There are over 800,000 empty houses in the UK.

Problem is they're in parts of the Country no one wants to live.

Regeneration of our northern cities is IMO the answer rather then encouraging migration to the SE.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Demand is high across many parts of the UK, but definitely not all of it. Plenty of vacant housing in the north of England. Whether or not this is a solution to the problems where demand is high is another conversation (I'm interested to see what the effects of HS2 are on property prices in the north - particularly central Brum).

And that's another problem with the housing market. My father in law lived for years in the same house in the North East of England (Co Durham). He figured his house would be a legacy for his three girls as property prices "were going up everywhere". Not only were they not going up in his town but then three other things occurred at the same time that precipitated the perfect storm. The credit crunch occurred. Vulnerable tenants were given control of paying rent themselves instead of the council paying it, crashing the rental market and two major "problem" families were moved in from Middlesboro. The girls' inheritance dropped 75% in one year and they had to sell to something like webuyanyhouse.com.

The property market is wrong when young uns have to leave their own community but just as wrong when it cheats an old man out of his only possession (and we're ok off but it genuinely upset him not to be able to provide as he thought).

(I should clarify this by saying he had to sell to move in with one of the girls as he couldn't look after himself)

 

[Machiavelli]

It would be an interesting gamble because the majority of people who turn up to vote Conservative are older and more likely to be homeowners (http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/sociology/voting/revise-it/voting-behaviour). They would have to be sure that such a policy would get young renters out to vote for Labour more than turing yet more homeowners Tory. The modern Labour party will only do things it thinks are a vote winner, even in the Milliband era.

I am genuinely interested at what Labour's 2015 manifesto will be like. Perhaps I'm a little overoptimistic about what Miliband will do, given what Blair and co did. Most Labour victories over the Tories have been achieved by them being bold and generating enthusiasm among the electorate, although at times (eg 1997) that enthusiasm for Labour has been achieved by hatred for the Tories.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

What about razing Withdean Stadium? Should please the more vocal residents there....

That's one way of sending John Catt round the bend...

 

[Machiavelli]

Housing prices in Brighton and Hove (and London) are obviously reflective of high demand to live in the area - the only realistic solution to this is to create more supply. In reality this means dramatically loosening development restrictions on the urban fringe and planning controls on density in the city centre.

Toronto is facing the exact same problem (but on a much larger scale) right now due to the implementation of Greenbelt policy in the 2000s (house prices have doubled in the past 10 years), although the City and Province have been more open to high-density development and as a result it has experienced the largest condo boom North America has ever seen.

Why does the solution always have to be to build more. There are plenty of properties that are left empty in this country, yet your 'only realistic solution' is to build more. There is a reason why the south-east has been so buoyant over the past few decades, and this is not simply to do with supply and demand, but to do with (successive) government policies. Have a look at the map of the rail lines that were culled in the Beeching Report, for instance: what happens to those areas that lost that connection? They're all depressed. They've all been abandoned by government, and the rest of the population. This is not a result of market forces, but government decision. There are several measures that government can take to prevent the current situation -- as indicated in an earlier post, a Land Value Tax, for instance, which would be a far better way of collecting local revenues than the terribly regressive Council Tax that we currently endure.

 

[Machiavelli]

LVT is based on the value of the land irrespective of what is actually built on it. In order to apply such a tax every plot of land in the UK will need to be valued.

Explain to me, if you have a street, (or a whole area for that matter), that is fully developed with different types of properties and has not had an empty plot come up for sale in decades, how you place a valuation on the land alone?

Nobody needs to explain this to you, because it's not going to happen.

You can't even make comparisons with similar areas to check if your valuations are close to the mark as sales of empty land plots are relatively rare.

The total tax revenue from LVT will have to be the same as that currently generated by council tax, stamp duty and business rates so those expecting it to reduce the tax they pay would be in for a shock.

How much tax revenue is accrued is obviously dependent on how the policy is implemented. Let's go with your assumption and say that the shift is revenue neutral. What will happen is that the vast majority will pay less, while a small minority will pay more, and substantially more. Most of these will be multinationals and other large companies with deep pockets, and they'll be able to afford it. There will be some people with low levels of disposable income, but a high value property -- you can imagine which newspapers these will figure in -- who are adversely affected, but the vast majority will benefit and, as indicated, it will have the additional positive effect of moving people away from overcrowded areas, and into empty and underused properties.

 

[RexCathedra]

There's only so much room between the ocean and the Downs.

San Francisco, without the earthquakes.
And South London playing the role made famous in the original Broadway show by Oakland.

 

[Creaky]

How much tax revenue is accrued is obviously dependent on how the policy is implemented. Let's go with your assumption and say that the shift is revenue neutral. What will happen is that the vast majority will pay less, while a small minority will pay more, and substantially more. Most of these will be multinationals and other large companies with deep pockets, and they'll be able to afford it. There will be some people with low levels of disposable income, but a high value property -- you can imagine which newspapers these will figure in -- who are adversely affected, but the vast majority will benefit and, as indicated, it will have the additional positive effect of moving people away from overcrowded areas, and into empty and underused properties.

I would think that was highly disputable!

Business rates are in general much higher currently than domestic council tax.

The principle of LVT is that the tax isn't dependent on what is built on the land but the value of the land itself. Whilst in some circumstances land with permission for commercial purposes is more valuable than that with permission for domestic properties that is generally not the case in cities. The result would be a fall in commercial taxation necessarily resulting in an increase in domestic tax.

The question of commercial properties raises another problem - how do you deal with a shop with a flat above it? - Currently the shop will pay a fixed business rate and the flat occupiers a banded council tax. How do you split the tax based on the value of the land?

There were numerous attempts during the last century to create a tax based on land and property valuations - none were really successful and we are still suffering the effects of the latest legislation which reimposed stamp duty and the council tax based on 'drive-by' valuations.

 

[LamieRobertson]

To buy my first place and not live in somewhere the size of a shed, I had to move to Worthing. Have vague thoughts of moving back closer to Brighton in the future but might be unrealistic while house prices are as they are over that way.

I've got to sell my place in Shoreham this year...probably end up in Worthing as it's too expensive to rent here and even worse eastwards

 

[OzMike]

I think Perth is becoming one of the most expensive in the world to live in.
In 4 years my weekly shop has gone from $200 to $400!
Thinking of going east.

 

[Randsta]

I love Brighton but in my life I'll never move back! The place is a rip off for property and not worth it...well may be if I win the lottery I'd get a crash pad !)

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Parts of this thread really depress me and make me realize how ****ed up housing is in the UK. To contrast I pay the princely sum of 845 euros which is approx 700 UK pounds for a smart modern one bed top-floor apartment in the centre of Berlin. And this 845 includes ALL utilities apart from internet. I'm in the middle of a capital city and paying money which will not even get me a shed back home.

 

[Butch Willykins]

I blame Sarah Beeney

 

[Machiavelli]

I would think that was highly disputable!

Business rates are in general much higher currently than domestic council tax.

The principle of LVT is that the tax isn't dependent on what is built on the land but the value of the land itself. Whilst in some circumstances land with permission for commercial purposes is more valuable than that with permission for domestic properties that is generally not the case in cities. The result would be a fall in commercial taxation necessarily resulting in an increase in domestic tax.

The question of commercial properties raises another problem - how do you deal with a shop with a flat above it? - Currently the shop will pay a fixed business rate and the flat occupiers a banded council tax. How do you split the tax based on the value of the land?

There were numerous attempts during the last century to create a tax based on land and property valuations - none were really successful and we are still suffering the effects of the latest legislation which reimposed stamp duty and the council tax based on 'drive-by' valuations.

I prefer your musings on football to politics and economics (you might feel the same about me). I dispute your premise, which is attempting to carve a clear distinction between the value of land, and what it is built on that land. There are various ways in which such a valuation can occur, but the predominant one places a premium on those bits of land AND property that attract the highest prices. That's why I indicated in my initial post that Oxford Street in London and Churchill Square were examples where LVT would be extremely high. The corollary of this, if the revenue accrued by the Treasury is identical to the combination of taxes that you've indicated, is that in less popular areas LVT would be lower, which would encourage the use of this land and the properties built on them. So it's not only redistributive, but also encourages a more 'optimal' use of land.
You don't seem to like the idea of LVT, but haven't offered an alternative, which you'd need to to prevent me thinking that you think that the current Council Tax, stamp duty, business rates, etc regime is preferable to a LVT.

 

[Citrus]

Why does the solution always have to be to build more. There are plenty of properties that are left empty in this country, yet your 'only realistic solution' is to build more. There is a reason why the south-east has been so buoyant over the past few decades, and this is not simply to do with supply and demand, but to do with (successive) government policies. Have a look at the map of the rail lines that were culled in the Beeching Report, for instance: what happens to those areas that lost that connection? They're all depressed. They've all been abandoned by government, and the rest of the population. This is not a result of market forces, but government decision. There are several measures that government can take to prevent the current situation -- as indicated in an earlier post, a Land Value Tax, for instance, which would be a far better way of collecting local revenues than the terribly regressive Council Tax that we currently endure.

I seriously question the idea that the reason the south-east has been so buoyant over the past few decades is due to government policy. There is a world-wide shift of people moving to major global cities and, in the UK, this means London. London is the reason the south-east is booming. Proximity and connection to London is everything.

I find it hard to believe that major investment in a rail line from Hull to York will do much to benefit either of those cities, let alone the north as a whole. A high-speed train to London from either, making the distance commutable would be a different story.

If we go back to the original question of "how can we reduce property prices in Brighton", there are only two possible answers: 1) increase supply/build more houses; or 2) decrease demand. I'm not fully sure how demand can be reduced, although I am genuinely interested to hear what kind of change in government policy would address this. I suspect projects like HS2 are as good as we can do.

 

[Norman Potting]

Sad to hear this. One of my big gripes with the UK is the attitude to, and cost of, housing.

I hate the constant crowing, almost arousal, in certain papers (do I have to spell them out?) when "house prices are on the up" as though this somehow is the answer to everything and that we should all rejoice.

 

[Creaky]

I prefer your musings on football to politics and economics (you might feel the same about me). I dispute your premise, which is attempting to carve a clear distinction between the value of land, and what it is built on that land. There are various ways in which such a valuation can occur, but the predominant one places a premium on those bits of land AND property that attract the highest prices. That's why I indicated in my initial post that Oxford Street in London and Churchill Square were examples where LVT would be extremely high. The corollary of this, if the revenue accrued by the Treasury is identical to the combination of taxes that you've indicated, is that in less popular areas LVT would be lower, which would encourage the use of this land and the properties built on them. So it's not only redistributive, but also encourages a more 'optimal' use of land.
You don't seem to like the idea of LVT, but haven't offered an alternative, which you'd need to to prevent me thinking that you think that the current Council Tax, stamp duty, business rates, etc regime is preferable to a LVT.

So you have a piece of land on Manchester's 'Salford Quay" with a relatively small footprint. A developer comes along and builds a tower block of 350 high end luxury apartments mainly occupied by millionaires. Alongside it are other relatively low cost housing. Under the rules of LVT and in reality the land for both have equal values as the planning use for each is the same. How is that 'fair'?

You ask what my alternative would be, that is quite simple - don't tax either land nor property - neither use local services. It is people that use the services and they should be taxed according to their means.

It may be politically unacceptable but the 'Poll Tax' or more correctly the 'Community Charge' but with a 'means element' built in is a much fairer tax.

In addition removing base taxation from land and property in use but with a 'punitive' tax for empty property would achieve most everything that a LVT would with the added benefit that taxation would only have to be assessed for empty property.