Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

There is only 10% difference in build costs over the UK. Average is
2/3 of a house value is the value of the land. If all towns, cities
and villages were twice as large, giving a population of 120 million,
then still only 15% of the UK would be settled and that is only 5%
paved.

You do talk ********.

You are an idiot. They are "official figures" Reda back on the thread
dumbo, the figures are there. Dumbo!!!

Double dumbo jumped in and thought I was commenting about his figure
about building costs, but I had read his post to the end before I answered.

Most towns and cities are already over crowded

Exactly!!

The UK has a land surplus.

We are living in crowded and dense cities, not a crowded and urbanised
country.

Despite claims of concreting over the countryside, only 7.5% of UK land is
settled.

I wonder if you have ever thought why? There is a very good reason.

Some abuse snipped.

Keeping the land idle has the effect of keeping the population down
along with the polution, through lack of housing.

It keeps the large owners rich which you are not one being a sycophantic
exploited one.

They can only be rich if the government takes up your stance about
building. No demand, no land value.


You are so thick you can't when you are being ripped-off.

How can I have been ripped off? I have my own land, my own house and it
didn't cost me all that much in todays costs. But every house owner can
look back and say that.

I see you have conveniently snipped the bit about all the polution
created by providing roads, transport, Prius, basic services and more
importantly, the short term cost and long term payback time of the
provision of all this.

Your heart is in the right place, your brain is so far up your arse...

Dave