Over at the IB Times I've written about the government's housing targets (not worth the paper they're written on, basically), and why we want to concrete over the green belt – well, at least some of it:
By freeing up green belt land the supply of housing could grow enough to let prices fall considerably. All of this would actually require very little green belt land to be built on – less than 1.5% of it would give us the space we'd need to build an extra 1.4 million new homes. We could build one million homes around London on just 3.7% of the capital's green belt.
Could the private sector do it? It already has – during the 1930s housing boom, private construction rose from 133,000 houses per year in 1934-45 to 279,000, in just one year – and these houses were affordable. If you come, they will built it.
The cost of extra infrastructure could be more than covered by capturing "planning gain", with the government buying green belt land, reclassifying it and selling it at the market rate to the private sector, keeping the gains for itself.
Trimming the edges of the green belt would suffice, but I'd like to go further. Much of the countryside is worth protecting, but much of the green belt itself is not. It doesn't provide amenity to anyone who doesn't live there already, it's bad for the environment, and it makes housing cripplingly expensive.
Read the whole thing. I've tried to make it as comprehensive as possible, as a useful 'cut out and keep' piece to send to people who haven't thought about how easily we could solve the housing crisis.