Hoeowners. Should they be a voter group?

In the UK, all we ever talk about is celebrities, the weather and House prices. House prices are a national obsessions, fuelled by TV programs like ‘property ladder’, ‘location location location’ and ‘buy a new home in the country’ (or whatever it’s called).
It’s also an obsession with politicians. because so many UK families have a mortgage, the price of their house is a vital indicator of wealth, and by inference, satisfaction with the government. House prices are currently falling in the UK, which people renting LOVE, but people who recently bought, or who own buy-to-let mortgaged properties HATE. This means the relative size, location and voting propensity of these groups become a major factor in policy decisions.

So do you think it should be a voter group for the game? I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned before. It’s only now (with the credit crunch) that this is seeming like an omission to me. Is this just a British thing, or is it common in other countries too?

Aren’t farmers already hoeowners? :slight_smile:

Seriously, though, Homeowners would probably be a good group to put into the game. For a first rough look at what they’re for/against:

Definitely in favor of
Mortgage tax reduction
Winter Fuel subsidy

Could go either way:
Community Policing (helpful vs Too Much Work for them)
Gated Communities (Keep the riff-raff out vs. Homeowner’s association rules running rampant)

Definitely against
Property Tax

I’m sure there are others, but these are the ones that I can come up with off the top of my head.

I don’t think they should be a voter group, voter groups should be limited to beliefs and very distinctive demographic characteristics, home ownership is too general, you should create a home ownership statistic though, and this would affect certain groups like middle income and capitalists, which at the moment are not affected by many positives.

That is an interesting idea, although at the moment I think that property tax is having direct effects. Maybe there are other policies that could be introduced that speak specifically to that statistic.

One of the major, major things that effects homeowners is interest rates, so there would be quite a big hole if you added homeowners but not interest rates. Once you add interest rates, you then start getting into the question of how much monetary policy you have to add to balance it. However, if you’re prepared to go into issues such as interest rates and inflation, then yes, this may be a good idea.

True, but as I’m sure you know, adding interest rates opens up a whole can of worms. I get shudders recalling my degree just thinking about it :smiley:

I wouldn’t add this unless there is no Democracy 3 planned.

Good heavens yes.

I imagine they wouldn’t much like Property Tax…

Stop thinking like an economist, and start thinking like an urban and regional planner. If you have a homeowners statistic, policies like road building, bus subsidies, rail subsidies, state housing and urban density will affect the statistic. Low density makes homeownership most affordable, high density (urban consolidation) makes it least affordable. State housing would make home ownership more affordable, especially if the rents are below the market price, because it would discourage people from buying investment properties, and pushing up property prices. Public transport reduces the need to have an extra car, or leads to less car use, this reduces the pressure on personal budgets, and reduces road infrastructure costs.

The reason I say a low density detacted single family dwelling is more affordable than a high density multi family dwelling is because it is a simpler structure to construct. In order to encourage high density development governments restrict the supply of land, this pushes up the price of land because demand exceeds supply, forcing developers to construct high density dwellings. The opposite is true of low density development were governments oversupply the market with land forcing prices to drop.

The argument that high density development is more efficient is counteracted by the argument that high density developments require more services and public open space, and suburbs originally designed for a low density residential use need new infrastructure to cope with the increase in the population size, because existing infrastructure usually cannot cope. Retro fitting an established suburb with new infrastructure is alway more expensive than placing new infrastructure in an emerging suburb.

Thats a good point. This sort of thing varies hugely between countries though. where land is flat as a pancake stuff like roads and power lines are easy, but in the mountains it’s a different story. And the sheer population density of Japan and the UK means land here will always be amazingly more expensive than it is in new Zealand or Canada.
If You add enough land to park a car to a house where I live, it’s going to cost you around £25000. Thats about forty thousand dollars for enough land to basically park a normal size car :frowning:

In England there exists a strong movement determined to preserve the countryside, and this has led to urban consolidation, which has caused a very wide ratio to develop between urban and rural land prices. I am correct?