Why do I get the feeling that this is BS like the rest of it. Please tell me something I can believe HIAG
As I say, it's all changed so much. But South street was good fun back then, and close to work. SoHo too was ok. But, you had to be far more careful where you wandered back in those days. One block too far and you were in a completely different place. If you asked a cab to take you North of 100th, they'd look at you like you were crazy!
New York was one of the safest cities in the world when I lived there, but I know how sketchy it used to be. For all of his right wing antics Mayor Giuliani actually made a really positive impact in making New York a lot safer and pleasant place to live and work.
It's all true. I met HIAG at the Kennedy's compound in Martha's Vineyard. I was merely a guest, HIAG was headlining a gig at a party hosted by the Kennedy's in honour of HIAG himself. He had Massachusetts' finest pussy crawling around him and it was quite a sight to witness him beating them off with his custom made ****ty stick. His band Walter Mitty and The Fantasists were a big hit.
Speaking of that, have you seen the decision that was handed down by the High Court, on Friday. Reading challenged the Government's policy change, and it looks like we're all back to square one. It's going to be interesting to see how this ****s up the revival in development, because I can see small to medium-sized developers shutting up shop, again.
* HIAG desperately tries to divert the conversation to avoid being pulled up for bullshitting about his 'Harvard days'
Yes, whether you liked his politics or not, he did what needed doing at that time. I left to come back to London just before he was elected.
There was that whole 'broken window' philosophy that dictated that small crimes lead to big crimes, so he went after everybody from the common vandal right up to the big Mafia bosses. He got the job done too and places that you mention like Times Sq and Broadway were turned from seedy porn and drug dens into tourist hotspots.
I hadn't seen that but one council throwing a hissy about the latest government policy is very unlikely to make any difference. The same happened with permitted development, the deadline of which is now being extended. Either way it makes no difference to me as I'm not a developer!
I'm not so sure. You need to read the judgement. The judge is, basically, saying what I said a year ago, that the policy was against the Act and that, if challenged, it would be over-turned. I cannot imagine that any council in the land is, now, going to ignore that judgement. Bear in mind, that any tax payer can challenge the decision of a local planning authority, not to mention the fact that the decision gives local authorities the means to hold every developer to account for the full tariff, and that they will be motivated to do so, as Reading council was, on account of the fact that more social housing is required to house immigrants and the poor. Unfortunately, this conflicts with the desire of developers, not to make lots of money, but to make small developments work. And more than 50% of the development in this country is undertaken by the smaller developers. I can see another lull in building, with all the consequences that that will entail. That's the reason why the Government made the policy change in the first place. Now, they are going to have to enforce it with legislation, and that will take months.
Are you referring to the social housing full tariff? Sorry if this is boring anyone but HIAG is once again talking out of his arse about a subject that he has limited to no understanding of.
Scheteeve, I don't know who you are or what your understanding of planning amounts to, but you have already admitted to not having read the judgement. Please do that, before slagging off my professional views. You seem like an intelligent chap, but you are making yourself look like a fool.
You referred to a full tariff. Are you referring to the social housing full tariff? Simple question. Answer yes or no.
I'm talking about the policy decision not to make a social housing contribution for developments of 10 houses or less, or developments of not more than 1000 sq metres. Before Friday's decision, such developments did not need to make a contribution to social housing. Now, they do. I don't know how many small to medium-sized developers you act for, but this decision has far-reaching reperccusions for them.
By the way, I brought this decision to your attention out of a misconceived sense of friendship, not to try to score any points against you. It would seem that you are too stupid to see my intentions for what they were.
I don't act for any small-medium sized developers (I don't act for any developers!). Every council has a different view on social housing and the priorities in their district. Reading clearly require more social/affordable housing so have objected and won, good for them. Some councils objected to Permitted Development as they wanted to retain office space, very few won, those that did win, good for them. The main requirement in the housing sector now is rental kit as too many people with good jobs and aspirations can't afford to buy so a lot of cities/towns will let developers build a lot of units with no social housing element. Manchester is a big fan of rental kit. So is Liverpool. So is Milton Keynes. There are many more. In short your snapshot view of a subject you don't really understand is misguided bollocks.
Whatever. You continue doing what you're doing, and I'll continue what I'm doing. You sound like a council worker to me. Clueless.
You're a lawyer/love god/guitar hero...we all know that. I've never pretended to be someone I'm not on here, like some do, I'm a land trader. Nothing to lie about!
Well, I suggest that you get yourself a decent solicitor, who can keep you up to date, asshole. Here, this is for free... http://www.housingexcellence.co.uk/...using-rules-will-heighten-housing-crisis-says Read and learn something, and perhaps you can reign in your stupidity, just a little bit.
