I would prefer that every tenth house is gifted to the council; The balance has to right. You are correct that I did not discus it the original document. I did not discus a lot of practicalities it is a basic concept.

I was too focused on making the agreement about how to make the site viable and desirable; in the hope of speeding up building and creating a realistic solution to the housing crisis.

Gifting homes to the council answers the questions; how to tax land, how to get a balanced amount of social intergration, and pay for it.

By gifting the homes, their is no need to fund it from the council – the social rent is income; not paying off the debt used to fund it. No complex funding, negotiations on funding with housing authorities or paying for it.

The second concern is the plan calls for an end to the crisis. The cost of private rents will be low, due to no supply vs demand issue. The cost of building is so low that homes will be affordable for most without tax payer assistance. We will not need as many council homes; if we resolve the crisis.

Most modern sites are not very desirable; they have cramed in the homes to make the site viable; so the developer can afford the site.

Its not supprising that most people who can afford to choose their new homes select a existing homes. Only about 10% of sales are of new housing. Without making new housing more desirable this percentage is unlikely to improve.

With the only true solution to the housing crisis being building homes we either need to do one of two things:

Increase private building making it more desirable to buy a new home, make easier to get planning permission and land. Designing areas the middle classes prefer over existing housing. They are only group large enough and have the resources to pay for the homes and infrastructure privately.

Alternatively build 1-2 millions of council homes over the next decade. it is a realistic possibility but cost are staggering and unlikely in the present financial climate.

The Greens have put a pleadge together which could go someway towards this. The green leader used a figure of £60,000 per home and 500,000 homes in the next parliment; would cost of £30,000,000,000.

The cost per home looks a little low; probably just the homes cost and not including the infrastructure but they are at least trying and the ideas should not simply be dismissed.

Your the one who wants to pay the outrageous price for the farmland.

The thing I hate about modern housing development is the density of them and lack of privacy.

If our current methods are so cost efficient, why is housing cost higher here than it is else where. I’m talking about housing that will not still be around in 200 years. Housing for now, that fits our current needs. Not something in the future that has to be retro fitted just to be made liveable. Building to last just means you have an abundance of old housing.that really isn’t fit for purpose, but needs to be adapted just to make it useable. The lifetime cost will be higher than rebuilding the cheaper units from scratch several times. And each time they are rebuilt they will meet modern standards. Instead of having the equivalent of 100s of thatched cottages that you are forcing the poor to live in in 100years.

You would build something needed now not in a years time. And build it so that in 100 years it is a run down slum where you are keeping the poor in substandard housing. Unless you want to put them into a tower block and let the gangs take over.

What type of socialist are you? Wanting to allow someone to make obscene profits off the backs of the poor. That sounds like something a Tory voter would say.

Yes social housing is for the poor. The rich do not need social housing. Middle-class usually also do not get social housing. Don’t understand the concept of social housing, do you?

Strange , in other countries people are willing to do it. New York and Washington D.C. people commute from up to 2 states away. Mexico City also have people who travel hours, as do most cities around the world. Concentrating a high population in a small area is a guarantee recipe for disaster. It is preferred to commute and have a better life outside the concentration of people.

You said you wanted to put the poor in a new slum. Medium density housing. Of course on methodical council land. I’m sure every council has acres of council land in their inventory ready to build on. Or are they going to buy it and make some property own even richer.