Jump to content

Housing crisis - Cheap housing or we f... on the street!


Recommended Posts

marxist degeneracy

 

i'm all for quality, affordable housing, don't get me wrong but i think the purpose behind this crass poster is more about creating accomodation for the tens of millions of immigrants that the signees of the UN Migration compact intend to flood into europe

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikhail Liebestein said:

Spotted at a bus stop in Denmark:

 

Poster at a public bus stop from Socialistic Youth Front in Denmark. It says "Cheap housing or we f... on the street"!

 

Think people are realising they are being screwed for the basics...

 

BC5A058C-1A61-40FF-899B-E33609D7282D.jpeg

Doesn't look Danish 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Macnamara said:

marxist degeneracy

 

i'm all for quality, affordable housing, don't get me wrong but i think the purpose behind this crass poster is more about creating accomodation for the tens of millions of immigrants that the signees of the UN Migration compact intend to flood into europe

 

Indeed, and is the wrong answer to the question / challenge of housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Houses are relatively cheap to build and only 1% of all land in the UK is currently for residential housing - so plenty of space.

 

Issue is it's an investment vehicle for the rich - and not deemed a practical neccisity for the average folk - hence why we have an issue.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr H said:

Houses are relatively cheap to build and only 1% of all land in the UK is currently for residential housing - so plenty of space.

 

i don't agree that there is plenty of space when you consider that we want to keep our greenbelt and that there may be health implications for people who live too near to certain things: cell towers, electricity pylons, major roads and airports

 

Then you have to consider the pressure you place on roads by building in certain areas

 

As for houses being 'cheap' that also might be a false economy if you consider the short shelf-life of modern homes which might last a homeowner their adult life but then not survive to be passed on to their children. Modern housing is not built to last so people will pay a 25 year mortgage for something their children may not get to inherit

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

i don't agree that there is plenty of space when you consider that we want to keep our greenbelt and that there may be health implications for people who live too near to certain things: cell towers, electricity pylons, major roads and airports

 

Then you have to consider the pressure you place on roads by building in certain areas

 

As for houses being 'cheap' that also might be a false economy if you consider the short shelf-life of modern homes which might last a homeowner their adult life but then not survive to be passed on to their children. Modern housing is not built to last so people will pay a 25 year mortgage for something their children may not get to inherit

 

You want less than 1% of all land to be for residential property?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr H said:

You want less than 1% of all land to be for residential property?

 

I think there are too many people in these islands

 

The EU imposed migrant quotas on its member states and british people voted to leave the EU to avoid these migrant quotas. However the traitor tory party have essentially accepted the migrant quota for britain by using the border force and RNLI to semi-officially taxi the migrants over to the UK where they are now building accomodation for them on MOD land while they process their british citizenship

 

The government is going to need to build more homes to give them FREE housing which it will do as part of the great replacement of the british population

 

So the argument i am making is that the locus of the discussion shouldn't centre on the need for more housing but rather on the need for LESS migrants. The media likes to say that migration will prevent the british population from stalling but so what if it does stall? Who says we need record population levels that have never before existed in these isles anyway?

 

maybe nature is trying to create equilibrium and stabilise populations and the satanic government is artificially boosting the population with migrants

Link to comment
Share on other sites

homes arent selling. homes are not even being put on the market.

a house only sells when there is a stable economy.

bankers lend on what they feel is stable into the future.

how stable has the last 2 years been?

how stable can you predict the next 5 to 10 years?

you can't.

hundreds of houses are being built around me, they are not for sale.

theres big towns with 60 houses for sale total.

i've seen small towns with less than 10 houses for sale

whether the lifting of restrictions brings back confidence the next few months will tell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

I think there are too many people in these islands

 

The EU imposed migrant quotas on its member states and british people voted to leave the EU to avoid these migrant quotas. However the traitor tory party have essentially accepted the migrant quota for britain by using the border force and RNLI to semi-officially taxi the migrants over to the UK where they are now building accomodation for them on MOD land while they process their british citizenship

 

The government is going to need to build more homes to give them FREE housing which it will do as part of the great replacement of the british population

 

So the argument i am making is that the locus of the discussion shouldn't centre on the need for more housing but rather on the need for LESS migrants. The media likes to say that migration will prevent the british population from stalling but so what if it does stall? Who says we need record population levels that have never before existed in these isles anyway?

 

maybe nature is trying to create equilibrium and stabilise populations and the satanic government is artificially boosting the population with migrants

I think the main problem given the fact hardly any of our land has residential property is that it's concentrated in just a few areas - big cities, rather than the whole country being "full".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr H said:

I think the main problem given the fact hardly any of our land has residential property is that it's concentrated in just a few areas - big cities, rather than the whole country being "full".

 

even when the countryside was more populated we didn't have 70 million people in the country

 

it isn't just a case of how many houses you can physically cram into land it is also a case of having enough farming land to produce food, having enough water to provide water to homes, having the ability to process sewage so that the waterways and beaches don't get polluted, having enough land to enable space for forest and nature, having enough land for grazing

 

That's not to say that we couldn't radically re-think land useage in this country as i think we should, but i think we also need to be addressing the issue of MASS immigration and the implications that has on everything from the environment, to the quality of life through access to healthcare, housing, class sizes, food production, clean water and air and waste disposal etc

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2022 at 3:06 PM, bamboozooka said:

hundreds of houses are being built around me, they are not for sale

 

how do you know that those houses are not just going to be handed out to migrants by the globalist government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Macnamara said:

it isn't just a case of how many houses you can physically cram into land it is also a case of having enough farming land to produce food, having enough water to provide water to homes, having the ability to process sewage so that the waterways and beaches don't get polluted, having enough land to enable space for forest and nature, having enough land for grazing

 

Precisely it. Quality of life depends to a large extent on the quantity of life, and with increasing numbers comes a risk to the sustainability of such quality.

I don't want my area to be inundated with large housing blocks and factories full of eastern Euros and Africans, just because it's possible. The roads are jammed enough already. It's hard to find untouched places that aren't farmland or already developed. 70 million people for a country you can drive through in half a day is more than enough.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 7:04 PM, Grumpy Grapes said:

In the poster, one of her eyes is closed. Symbolism? 


I remember David Icke showing the dead sheep/awake reptilian 1 eye symbolism back in the early 2000s. Its a reference towards human beings being a bio-engineered race and a mock to the masses who are unaware that half of their self is unconscious. 

 

On 1/18/2022 at 8:22 PM, Mikhail Liebestein said:

Spotted at a bus stop in Denmark:

 

Poster at a public bus stop from Socialistic Youth Front in Denmark. It says "Cheap housing or we f... on the street"!

 

Think people are realising they are being screwed for the basics...

 

 


Housing is always going to be expensive around areas of commerce because older people need to get a return on their investments. Real estate is one of those things.

There are arguments that housing shouldn't be used for speculation/returns but Pensioners aren't exactly going to put their life savings into stocks and cryptos at all time highs. That is dangerous in the current economy.  

I believe the best course of action for both parties, (renters+investors) is to move to under valued areas and build business there. most built up towns and cities are nothing more than work camps aimed at extracting life energy out of people. building your own business the frontiers of society is the way to go.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, permabear said:


I remember David Icke showing the dead sheep/awake reptilian 1 eye symbolism back in the early 2000s. Its a reference towards human beings being a bio-engineered race and a mock to the masses who are unaware that half of their self is unconscious. 

 


Housing is always going to be expensive around areas of commerce because older people need to get a return on their investments. Real estate is one of those things.

There are arguments that housing shouldn't be used for speculation/returns but Pensioners aren't exactly going to put their life savings into stocks and cryptos at all time highs. That is dangerous in the current economy.  

I believe the best course of action for both parties, (renters+investors) is to move to under valued areas and build business there. most built up towns and cities are nothing more than work camps aimed at extracting life energy out of people. building your own business the frontiers of society is the way to go.  

 


There is a lot to be said for that.

I'm in pretty decent financial shape, and could retire at 50 if I was happy taking a lower cost retirement. That said, lower cost doesn't necessarily mean lower quality. I live in Surrey which is very expensive and crowded. My house could by a lot more elsewhere in the more rural parts of the UK, Europe or US. Actually having a farmstead might be the best investment given the likely future. Certainly it makes sense to get out of the potential range of a "Tsar Bomba" on central London.

 

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

 

Use the presets!!!

 

Edited by Mikhail Liebestein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, permabear said:


I remember David Icke showing the dead sheep/awake reptilian 1 eye symbolism back in the early 2000s. Its a reference towards human beings being a bio-engineered race and a mock to the masses who are unaware that half of their self is unconscious. 

 


Housing is always going to be expensive around areas of commerce because older people need to get a return on their investments. Real estate is one of those things.

There are arguments that housing shouldn't be used for speculation/returns but Pensioners aren't exactly going to put their life savings into stocks and cryptos at all time highs. That is dangerous in the current economy.  

I believe the best course of action for both parties, (renters+investors) is to move to under valued areas and build business there. most built up towns and cities are nothing more than work camps aimed at extracting life energy out of people. building your own business the frontiers of society is the way to go.  

 

I don't think the Government want cheaper housing. Houses is where most folks store their wealth in the UK. Government needs to keep them propped up so they don't lose votes at the ballot. Plus it's a good place to hide any money printing! Plus having house prices going higher makes it more unaffordable for younger people making them more dependent on the state.

Edited by Mr H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend once told me that cities are factory farming for humans, came along well before factory farms for animals lol. 

 

A quick look at stats shows me that Denmark has about 1/3 the population density (357 per sq mi) compared to England (1119). So the situation varies a lot, maybe Denmark has more space for extra housing. 

 

But here in England we're just beginning to realise our strategic weakness with dependence on foreign imports for important commodities like food, energy, building and other materials. I tend to agree that we're over populated as regards our basic security and sustainability. Over population makes us more dependent on unfriendly countries; just look how Russia is weaponising its gas supply as leverage in its war on Ukraine. 

 

But then the growth-dependant economic system doesn't want a static or reducing population and arranges population growth by any means to ensure increasing wealth for the elite. Even if that means "re-setting" the culture. 

 

So what to do about housing problems? The right-to-buy scheme has been a factor. Councils have to sell their homes at a discount and are restricted about using the money for more homes; housing associations too I understand. This is discrimination against private tenants who usually pay higher rents, have less security, and don't accrue a discount towards buying their home. Why not extend right-to-buy to them too? 

 

I never understood why councils don't simply buy property on the open market rather than have to build their own. Get rid of council estates (which are already partly private now) and simply have mixed housing, private and public together. 

 

Also the large number of empty properties is another factor. There was a TV series about this a few years ago. Property sometimes gets bought up speculatively for capital gain first and rental income secondly, it's a result of the high inflation in the sector. 

 

Where I live, rents aren't any cheaper than mortgage payments, and tenancies are insecure, the situation is increasingly difficult for poorer people, so I can't really blame anyone for wanting to protest about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...