Build houses or requisition churches?

[chatelot16]

Hello

rage against the government who ridicules itself ...

all the successive governments have done nothing to make housing available enough ... is it reasonable to accuse Catholics of having unused buildings? which in addition is derisory

Some convent in Paris ... and if we counted rather barracks unoccupied!

everything was said tonight on the 5

not enough housing construction for ten years

an increasingly severe environmental standard, which increases the prices of new housing ... those who will have the means will benefit and the others will burst into the street

increase in complexity to have building permits: minimum period of 4 for the formality of a real estate project

law and regulations increasingly unfavorable to landlords ... all law in principle favorable to tenants end up discouraging any investment in housing for rent

I liked this thought: the state still finds money to build roundabout ... if we had used this money to build housing it would be better

it is urgent to ask the government to go in the right direction: simplify construction!

we are in a difficult situation ... this is not the moment to be a perfectionist: we have to allow anyone to build anything ... it will always be better than letting people go cold

the state will resume the right to regulate the construction when it will have retraced the delay

[sen-no-sen]

I understand your dismay chatelot.

If the action of Madame Duflot is commendable, it remains above all a media screen.
The government being in a rather tense situation, taking into account its almost zero maneuver march, it is now necessary for the ministers to make the "com" .... even if they lose their credibility.
(the example of Mr Montebourg and his "made in France" striped sweater is a model of its kind!)

Contrary to what all associations propose, I do not think that the solution is in the massive construction of social housing.
It is also appalling to see that the errors of the past are willingly and with assistance to reiterate.

The concept of the HLM is completely outdated, we see once again the conceptual backwardness of our "elites".
The construction of social housing will only perpetuate the system of social failure in our country.


The social housing policy is since 30 years:

1) A staggering cost paid by the taxpayer.
2) A ghettoisation of individuals.
3) A rise of communitarianism, and therefore, in reaction, the rise of racism and politics of the extreme.
4) A fertile breeding ground for delinquency.
5) The development of the security society.

The truly effective solution would be to create a state-owned bank, with interest-free loans, so that people can become owners, avoiding those who end up in social ghettos.

[Ahmed]

The really effective solution would be to stop impoverishing people; creating social housing is tackling the consequences to better hide the causes.

[chatelot16]

I agree that the hlm price not even really moderate is not necessarily the right solution

so we have to stop regulating anyhow and let build anything anywhere!

I know too many people who have the means to build something useful and who is prohibited

I have seen too much destruction of housing in recent years

I do not say anything specifically against the current government because the precedent did not do better ... we are really stuck in an absurd way of regulation ... we will soon envy the poor countries where there is at least the freedom to build slums

in France we will soon have more than high quality housing for a few ... and the others who crevent

[BobFuck]

We finally told the truth on TV, and I missed it! Shit then

increase in complexity to have building permits: minimum period of 4 for the formality of a real estate project

I have already posted in another topic the US index of real estate prices box-shiller, but it does not hurt:



We see 2 types of curves, plates and hunchbacks.

For 3 flat curved bottom, no bubble: this is where there is no stupid urban planning regulations like ours. For example, Dallas, TX, which is very rich, no bubble: normal, there is no shortage of land by law. You want some ground: ok.

The worst among the hunchbacks are in California where it's the madness of the PLU, as with us!

As usual, the rich get richer by speculating (for example, I tripped on my old apartment) and the poor can not buy anymore.

Otherwise + 1 for the rest of your post, renters, etc.

it is urgent to ask the government to go in the right direction: simplify construction!

Whore, read a liberal point of view on a forum French, I am shocked limit

The truth is that the private sector is quite capable of solving the problem quickly without costing the taxpayer a buck, but for that, it would be necessary to get out of the social-collectivist logic, and it is not won.

we are in a difficult situation ... this is not the moment to be a perfectionist: we have to allow anyone to build anything ... it will always be better than letting people go cold

No, we do not need slums.

A decent construction (well finished, isolated, all the bazaar, not luxury, but still good) comes out less than 1000 € / m². However, the final sale price is at least triple in the region ...

The excessive (and artificial) price and scarcity of land forces buyers to compromise on:

1- The location: we buy further because cheaper, so we have more car. The fad of ecologists to prevent urban sprawl has just pushed buyers further away, out of PLU, SCOT and other traps. Result: more cars, pollution, lost time.

2- Orientation: this criterion does not matter anymore, whereas it is essential ... we build where we have the right, not where we should ...

3- The quality of construction: the land encroaches largely on the construction budget.

This last point is neglected: we need to develop new construction systems (other than hollow concrete blocks ...) that are simpler, less expensive, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly (in a comprehensive thought-out approach, not just "put on your wool wood and you are absolute "). But the first steps of a new system are expensive and risky: it is the economies of scale that then lower the price. When the budget is tight, there is no more room for innovation and risk. We do what we know how to do, at the minimum price.

the state will resume the right to regulate the construction when it will have retraced the delay

AMHA, the state must be limited to:

- do not bother those who want to build a home
- have a justice that works so that the crooked promoters are eliminated
- possibly, provide a subsidized service of advice to buyers (energy aspects, etc.)
- And that's about it.

[quote = chatelot16] I know too many people who have the means to build something useful and who is banned [/ quote]

Kind, me. I have the dough to build a performance and modern hut, but not to buy a land at 300 k €.

> If Madame Duflot's action is commendable

No, she's exceceable.

> The truly effective solution would be to create a bank
> government debt, with interest-free loans

Bad solution too.

The bureaucratic thing is the problem, this is not the time to suggest creating more ... especially since you are reinventing the subprime and PTZ, indeed "really effective" to raise the price. bubble!

The only solution is that the housing is at its real price, which is actually not expensive.

The current social housing responds to an ubiquitous logic:

- A voluntary shortage is created. Prices go up.
- The people growls: we distribute to some (who vote properly) subsidized housing with money taken from others, we ask to close their mouths.

The really effective solution would be to stop impoverishing people; creating social housing is tackling the consequences to better hide the causes.

+1

On the rental: since purchase prices are too high, and rents are limited by the resources of tenants, buying for rent is no longer profitable.

A fall in purchase prices will mechanically increase the profitability of the rental investment. Ideally it would take a -60% on the purchase price.

There, we would see rentals grow like mushrooms, hence more competition between donors, so a small drop in rents, a very sharp decline on slums (practice for the one who is really on the run) and a strong motivation for renovate slums.

Of course, it would be necessary that the state stops to annoy the lessors ...

EDIT: I forgot, because it's obvious, to mention that the ceiling on rents has as a result, as he always had it whenever he was applied, to stop the investment for rental purposes and thus to aggravate the shortage.

[Mathew]

Bobfuck and chatelot, I love your analysis.
Clear, clean and precise.

[sen-no-sen]

AMHA, the state must be limited to:

- do not bother those who want to build a home
- have a justice that works so that the crooked promoters are eliminated
- possibly, provide a subsidized service of advice to buyers (energy aspects, etc.)
- And that's about it.

You have evaded the main subject: housing for poor people.
Liberalizing the construction sector is only a very fragmented way of dealing with a much larger problem: poverty.
As we have between 400 € and 1000 € / month how do we build?
The problem of social housing does not date from the boom of real estate, it is almost 30 years that it is a problem.

At the present time the problems are not the dwellings themselves (there are enough), it is the financial means to appropriate it.
Another major problem is the distribution of jobs.
With a dominant tertiary sector that lead to rural desertification, prices explode in a very local way in large cities and around it (conurbation).

The major solutions lie above all in the means of financing on the one hand and in the development of rural areas on the other.


Ahmed wrote:

a really effective solution would be to stop impoverishing people; creating social housing is tackling the consequences to better hide the causes.

As usual!
See the maxim Bossuet!

[Christophe]

Good curve (I had already noticed Bob, do not worry, we read your messages ) to shift 5-8 years and change the names by French cities to have the equivalent here ... And that's good if the market is down here at home... except for the crazy young proprios who have been indebted to 30 or 40 years to buy well overvaluing 2 or 3 times their real value ... but again it is the bankers who will win ...

Good if not to refocus on the debate about the lack of housing and abandoned places: since "always" I have known a barracks in the near center of Mulhouse which was disused. It is now just 2 or 3 years ago that rehabilitation work has started.

Which means that this barracks remained "wasteland" for almost 30 years ...which did not prevent, quite the contrary, the construction of new building bars in the early 2000s a few hundred meters away ... which means that the demand for housing was there ... but that it blocked "somewhere" ...

[Christophe]

not enough housing construction for ten years

In my opinion, there is clearly a collusion between the building trades (from the shell to the real estate agent) precisely to "artificially" inflate the prices per m² ...

Just as for oil, the state is the winner at the price increase: more notary fees, more VAT on the new, more tax, more inheritance fees, more commission various ... etc etc ... so, as usual, politicians lie like crooks ...

[chatelot16]

your barracks was certainly a beautiful stone building with wooden floors ... impossible to praise that with current standards

conclusion we prefer to leave people in the street than to praise what exists, because what exists is not up to standards

Renting each room in the barracks as an apartment leaving the communal toilet seems like another age ... but it might have been helpful to a lot of people! a room in a barracks with a tiny rent is better than nothing or a real flat too expensive we can not afford to pay