Nimbys are constantly portrayed as selfish old fogeys; resistant to change; concerned only for house prices. Yimbys, according to your article, are ambitious, socially concerned, young go-aheads (‘The moment has come’: pro-building Labour yimbys are set to raise the roof, 15 September).
There are many alternative points to be made. Public discussion centres on the assumption that building more houses will make home ownership more accessible, in the belief that increased supply to meet demand will bring prices down. This is wishful and simplistic thinking.
The housing crisis is one of affordability and accessibility, not supply. There are plenty of unoccupied dwellings in Britain. There is also a hidden element blocking the laws of supply and demand: that vested interests of estate agents and homeowners have no desire to see house prices fall.
Keir Starmer’s policies seem to be a developers’ charter, unleashing a rash of identical estates of four- and five-bedroomed houses on choice agricultural land, due to be swiftly bought up by landlords, keen to cash in on sky-high rents. And every house built increases the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and reduces the land’s ability to absorb excessive rainfall.
A raft of measures are required to tackle the issue of houses bought as investments instead of to live in: an end to right to buy; an end to buy-to-let mortgages; a cap on rent increases; an acceptance of moderate rates of interest to make savings worthwhile. Above all, we need to lose the unhealthy obsession with constantly rising house prices.
Hazel Davies
Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside
I was not surprised to read your article regarding the survey of “hard nimbys”, which found that most people would not categorically oppose housebuilding in their local area. Most people live in urban areas, and who would object to new homes being built on brownfield land, or retail and office space being repurposed? What people do object to is the loss of green space, agricultural and wild land. These areas are essential for our mental health, provide the food we eat and also vital ecological services. We have a responsibility to safeguard this land for future generations.
We are experiencing a housing emergency, so why is no one focusing on the fact that about 70% of homes are underoccupied, that there are about 800,000 official second homes in England alone, and that there are about 250,000 homes just lying empty?
Helena Forsyth
Banchory, Aberdeenshire
Could I encourage the Guardian to avoid “nimby” as a blanket term for those who object to plans that will erode or destroy green spaces (Fewer than one in five UK voters are ‘hard nimbys’, finds survey, 15 September)? Nimby has long been used to disparage serious environmentalists whose concerns, far from being restricted to their immediate surroundings, are based on an understanding of the dangers besetting the planet as a whole. I might add that, far from stopping the exodus, Labour’s ill-advised yimby/nimby discourse will propel many more of their erstwhile supporters into the Green party.
Prof Jem Poster
Presteigne, Powys
Share
Print
