Finally the perfect environment for her natural camouflage!

(This is what I was doing yesterday, in between arguing on bluesky....)

www.scottishhousingnews.com/articles/ten...

Your efforts are appreciated by this resident, at least!

Patten Recognition

Your selfless sacrifice is noted and will be taken into consideration when the revolution comes

*in cash terms* is considered out of the question anyway, and aiming more for stable in cash terms and hope growth gonna kick in. That is a long way short of what crisis requires IMO, but it may be the politics of doing more is prohibitive.

Okay, that makes sense, thanks. I can see the logic of some kind of smoothing in principle, though I still have a vague intuitive worry that this is potentially just pushing more of the 'haircut' on to the people who buy at the top of market instead of the builders. But maybe cheaper housing >

*something LIKE this

Thanks! I was 10% asking a rhetorical question because thinking about something this but 90% genuinely asking a question because I really am a bit unsure of my ground.

I'm definitely sure I am missing something here 😬

Prices are really high, so if margins were not huge it's because the price of land (their biggest input) has risen to keep them that way. So at some point, if we want cheaper houses, *someone* who owns property has to take that haircut. No?

Don't we want them to do that? Isn't that exactly what we want?

Are there any ways to increase housebuilding that DON'T involve artificially inflating the property market even further?

EG how much of 'they aren't building' is because it costs nothing to hold on to undeveloped land in hope next govt changes tack?

"One of you may answer but you may not confer!"

(I've encountered a LOT of bad faith argument on this topic. I mentioned small landlords trying to argue against regulation by saying it would favour BIG EVIL CORPS but I've also had people who work with/for corp landlords trying to pin all the blame on small businesses. )

Ah, cool. I possibly misread your tone but thought you were disagreeing more widely. Sorry for being touchy!

(Sorry if I have misunderstood, but feels like you are really driving at disproving a particular point that I am not sure I made, or intended.)

I still feel a bit like we are talking at cross-purposes here. The point of regulation and proper enforcement is that people who are unable to meet the basic standards required *are no longer allowed to be landlords*, right?

Full disclosure of interests: I am a member of living rent and we're currently doing a campaign on this:

bsky.app/profile/leit...

Fwiw i'm not saying 'corps are bad' - nor are most housing campaigners tbh. It's the small landlord industry pushing that talking point most i think. From the point of view of tenants I think it's not the major issue.

I've had bad ones of both types. Only good one I've had was a small business.