250,000 new homes will be built on abandoned shopping centres and other brownfield
 

[250,000 new homes will be built
on abandoned shopping centres
and other brownfield sites under
£5bn plan unveiled by Sajid Javid
Hundreds of thousands of homes
set to be built under £5bn scheme
Javid looking at brownfield sites
such as abandoned shopping centres
Billions will be spent on building
roads and other key infrastructure ]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...5449625473.jpg


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4M1ROxqEs



Yes Sajid - get building

Sounds good in theory but brownfield is brownfield for a reason... hope the land isn't contaminated.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7342031.html

Ah right so public money is being given to sell public land to private enterprise for private homes... sounds about right :/

So the government is wrong for investing 5 billion in new housing? .... perhaps better not to bother and then they can be accused of not caring :shrug:

It would be caring if the housing were affordable, Gavin Barwell suggests council housing creates a divide but what's the alternative? private renting.. you're still renting except you don't have any any of the acceptable homes standards, rent caps or long term tenancy security :/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7341946.html

Damned if they do... damned if they don't.

The Tenancy regulations AND most of the Labour run councils in this country, greatly favour the tenant - no matter how low-life, non-rent-paying, property-trashing, drug-taking, pill-popping, and obnoxious they may be, and no matter if they had the best, most caring, generous landlord in the country who allowed them to move into a gleaming modern home which was left a complete trashed wreck.

Not all landlords are BAD.

Who said they were?.. :/

You're missing the point.

What does that mean in this context?

The same as it would mean in any other context.

I think the government could announce that they're going to give us all an extra £500 in our pay packet next month and somebody would manage to find a negative in it

Rather a nonsensical statement, doesn't even work as a hypothetical.

Can you attempt to explain it for me? damned if they do what exactly? sell public land? damned if they don't what? provide social housing?... You are just too vague.

No one else on here has trouble comprehending me. Only you. Why is that?

The government is damned if they build houses and damned if they don't. Clear enough?

not sure I understand Livia, could you please clarify :huh:

Your glib reference makes no sense to me that's why.
But in a backwards way you're right, they are damned for giving land and money for private firms ( fingers in pies) and damned for not building enough social housing.

Like I said... everyone else gets it. Maybe ask someone to explain it to you.