
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive.
2: Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed.
3: Be civil, No violations of [TOS](https://mastodon.world/about).
4: No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
5: Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
6: No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban.

[EOR]
[BOC]
That article seems to focus on proportion of empty homes, which seems like a bit of a red herring. Surely we should be trying to find actual numbers? I'd be willing to bet that many northern cities have a higher density (and actual number) of vacant properties and suitable brownfield sites (abandoned land).

[In 2013, there were over 92,000 empty privately owned homes in the NE, NW and Yorkshire, and 46,000 in the East and West Midlands.](http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/02/empty-homes-in-england-get-the-data-by-local-authority) It seems that long term investment in the north of England would be one of the best ways to reduce the strain on London and the south east.

Theoretically, there is also enough brownfield land to build up to 1.5 million homes. [There's some debate about exactly how much of that land is immediately usable](https://fullfact.org/factchecks/green_belt_enough_brownfield_land_million_new_homes-28009), but that land does exist in our towns and cities. However, that land needs to be freed from the hands of property speculators and hesitant developers, and local authorities need the power and money so they can push for more of it to actually be built on: there need to be incentives to make up for the preparation that needs to be done to the sites before being redeveloped - something many developers want to avoid doing.

Primarily, there needs to be more investment where there is a surplus of land and housing, so that more people actually want to live, work and raise a family in those areas, rebalancing the UK's regions away from the southeast focus.

There's also a case that can be made for setting aside more smaller plots of land for individuals and smaller companies to build houses or premises on, so that the onus is less on the big developers to get the ball rolling with redevelopment projects. After all, it's not in their interests to flood the market with lots of high quality, affordable houses. (Across Europe, people on middle incomes can often build their own homes, because plots of land are often sold in single house-size plots, but in the UK it's next to impossible. Most land suitable for residential development is sold in huge chunks at a price that individuals can't afford to buy.)

It's not as simple as immigration being entirely to blame for the housing problem: there's been a lack of political will to address a large number of problems to do with the economics of redevelopment, the regional balance of the country's economy and the state of our aging housing stock, for many years.
[EOC]
