"I believe that speculators and investors are responsible for the ureasonable escalation of Britain's housing stock. It is now almost impossible for young people to get on to the housing ladder as they have been priced out of the market. One of the main factors in creating a stable relationship is having the security of your own home. If home owners were limited to one domestic property it would inevitably reduce house prices and bring back to life many of the villages in our country."
And what, pray tell me, would happen to people who couldn't afford their own homes if people were no longer able to own houses to rent to them?
Practice on the continent shows how ridiculous the statement about the stable relationships is: where renting is normal practice, people still have stable relationships. (Granted, tenants have much better security of tenancy and so on, which would be a huge asset over here - but still; owning a home is not necessary to a stable relationship!)
Now, if the petitioner means - and on reflection it is possible he does - that people shouldn't own second homes (rather than shouldn't own residences that they let), I would have rather less argument with him. I don't think I'd ever ban having second homes, I'd just tax them enormously and let the market do its own thing. But I have less quarrel with someone who wants to ban them than someone who wants to ban private house lettings.
I wish the petitioner had had the sense to make what he does want clear. Idiot.
No comments:
Post a Comment