Hi,
The International Union for Land Value Tax and Free Trade (theIU) publishes an e-Newsletter several times a year.
We are happy to send it to non-members so if you want a copy e-mailed to you please send me your e-mail address.
 
If you want further information see:  www.theIU.org

 

 Dave

 Dave Wetzel
Acting General Secretary

The IU

-- home: 203-539-1484 (google voice, replacing 322-6145)
cell: 203-722-1644

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-it-will-take-more-than-words-to-make-property-affordable-2174680.html

Dave Wetzel wrote:


Yesterday's Independent UK national newspaper. (Monday 3 January 2011)
Leading Article - extract below. (URL below for full item).

Leading article: It will take more than words to make property affordable

There are ways that the state can curb prices. It could increase taxes on
housing, perhaps by imposing capital gains tax on first homes, or a land
value tax. This would reduce the profits from speculation in housing. It
could build (or encourage the building of) more houses. Increasing the
supply of housing would depress prices. It could reform the rental laws to
make long-term renting easier (as it is on the Continent). Rent reform would
reduce the profitability of being a landlord, thus taking some air out of
the buy-to-let market which has contributed substantially to house price
gains in recent years.

Ed Dodson here:
Thanks, Dave. I went on and posted comments. Perhaps some interest can be
generated if others reply to what I offered.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
> I wonder RL and his faithful Indian companion Walto (sorry about that /could
n't help myself) did not use these resources before laying down the old law (as
Londoners would say) about a  town they have only the haziest idea about from
treating "Upstairs Downstairs" as a documentary.

Funny stuff, but I'm guessing that the faithful companion remark is even more
dated than Roy's use of "tony" or mine of "digs."  "Upstairs Downstairs" is a
bit more up to date, I suppose, taking us all the way to Galsworthy and 1970s
"Masterpiece Theater" productions. So if you had a point about us being 'out of
date' I'm afraid the color of your beard might have given you away here, dude.

Regarding my actual point, it is not terribly affected by claims regarding the
"average cost" of land in Central London since, obviously, those are jacked up
by the high end.  I don't have this information myself, and it's possible that
your benighted civil servants and fire brigade guys may never get to live there,
but you'd need an actual distribution of prices to convince anybody, or even
make a legitimate point.  London could be the exception, of course, but,
generally, inner cities contain slums as well as mansions, Keemosabe.


W

Give some help if you will.  I am working with a guy here in Ashland, Oregon who
is writing a book and plans to include serious mention of the land question
including our favorite brand of taxation and sharing the earth after he heard a
lecture Alanna Hartzok gave here last July.  In addition to being open to
working with me to see that he gets our message clearly he has asked me to help
him with some economics related questions and I have agreed to do so.

He wants to know if there is any clear mainstream research, discussion and
acceptance of the notion he has that our world, our economy, is about 4%
efficient.  I know there are various ways of looking at this such as
unused/underused productive capital and waste of food to rot and pests in silos
etc.

Please give me some specific direction and references.  The requirement is that
it has to be mainstream and generally accepted stuff so that readers will not
push back.  I also want to be able to give him the Georgist perspective on the
issue which I personally do not yet know about or articulated for myself and
have not read if it exists.

Thanks.

Wendell Fitzgerald
805-636-5536

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...>
wrote:

> RL and Walto seem unclear where Central London
> is and hanker after the idea that it contains
> enclaves of cheap land.

No, we are just willing to know the fact that not all
residences in central London are as land-value-intensive
as the Georgian terraces and mansions of Belgravia.

> Wikipedia gives a good account of what Central
> London consists of and states at the outset that
> the whole lot is characterised by "high land values"
> while there is a later statement:"The rateable value
> of the central area is exceptionally high" (rateable
> referring to local property tax valuations).

Now all we need is David's evidence that these high land
values are in no instance accompanied by high-density
residential use and consequently more modest land value
per resident.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: David will not be
providing any evidence for his claims.

> The UK average house price is Ł165k ; in London as
> a whole it is Ł341K ; in central London it would be
> upwards of Ł 2 millions.It is hard to see that the
> half median exemption would have much effect in
> providing ordinary people needed to clean up; work
> on the transport system in hospitals etc with a
> place to live.Hence my references to the need for
> publicly owned and subsidised  homes.

In David's imagination, land rent recovery would not
result in more housing being built by private
developers, especially on the highest-value land, and
thus even lower prices for it than these:

http://www.findaproperty.com/searchresults.aspx?edid=00&salerent=1®ionid=018&\
bedrooms=01&maxprice=800

Let's do some math, shall we?

In the UK, location rent probably accounts for about
30% of GDP.  The individual land rent exemption would
be about 20% of per capita rent, so about 6% of per
capita GDP or roughly Ł120/month.  So for a couple,
the exemption would pay for about 1/3 of the rent on
their modest 1BR flat, EVEN IF, UNDER THE STIMULATIVE
EFFECT OF LAND RENT RECOVERY, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL
PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT to increase supply
and thus reduce prices.  And at least one of this
couple is presumably employed at a vital task in a
school, hospital, etc., so they would presumably also
be getting paid for their (presumably unionized)labor.

Conclusion: even at CURRENT housing prices, which would
certainly be drastically lower if developers had both
the incentive and the liberty to increase supply (they
currently have neither), the universal individual land
rent exemption would make  housing SUBSTANTIALLY more
affordable EVEN in central London... and that's ALSO
assuming no local component in the exemption to reflect
local variations in land rents.

> As to the surreal RL proposal to break up Central
> London uniform terraces in order to put up apartment
> blocks incompatible in style with their surroundings,
> reference to Google under "City of Westminster
> Conservation Areas" shows there are legal
> proscriptions against doing so.

David seems to be having a little trouble understanding
the difference between lawyers' laws and nature's laws,
(hint: the latter can't be changed) and in appreciating
the relative difference in political difficulty of
implementing full land rent recovery vs amending or
eliminating some arbitrary "conservation area."

> There are 489 conservation areas in London as well as
> a corresponding number of single buildings saved from
> the wrecker's ball by "listing".

And a correspondingly astronomical cost of housing...

A human life is something worth saving.  An old building
is just a pile of stone.  If old buildings had all been
"saved from the wrecker's ball by listing," Paris would
still be a collection of mud huts on the Seine.

Has it ever occurred to David, at any point in his
borderline thoughtful analysis, that the buildings so
mercifully saved from the evil wrecker's ball would
never have existed in the first place if the PREVIOUS
buildings on those sites had been "saved" from the
wrecker's ball?

>  In the City of Westminster there are 56 areas that
> are subject to very strict conservation regulations
> and opening up the web-site's entries for Pimlico,
> Belgravia,Grosvenor Gardens etc will show what you
> the squares and terraces we are dealing with.

What we are actually dealing with here is a peculiar
mentality that imagines whatever is currently in place
is perfect, and must never be changed.  Really, David?
It is impossible for anything better than Georgian
terraces and squares ever to be designed and built (or
perhaps more to the point, imagined) in central London?

I await any evidence at all for such a claim.

> I wonder RL and his faithful Indian companion Walto
> (sorry about that /could n't help myself) did not
> use these resources before laying down the old law
> (as Londoners would say) about a  town they have
> only the haziest idea about from treating "Upstairs
> Downstairs" as a documentary.

The answer is very simple: we don't accept your premise
that Georgian terraces and squares in central London
constitute the acme of human architectural achievement.

> As to the curt replies to my enquiries about
> exemption implementation some equally equally curt
> replies: you cannot pass off such an experiment in
> social engineering as scientific by admitting it is
> an experiment;

True: science also requires an open mind as to what
can be learned by experimentation, and engineering
requires an openness to considering solutions other
than traditional but failed ones.

> there is no evidence that it will not inflate
> property values in the way help to ordinary people
> via mortgage interest relief led to the banks
> creating money for the property bubble.

??  Yes, of course there is: the lack of any prospect
of profiting by such speculation.  It doesn't matter
if aggregate rents increase a bit: landholders will
just have to pay a bit more rent, and everyone will
just get a bit bigger individual exemption.

-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "WendellF"
<wtfitzgerald84@...> wrote:

> He wants to know if there is any clear mainstream
> research, discussion and acceptance of the notion
> he has that our world, our economy, is about 4%
> efficient.

What would that even mean?

> I also want to be able to give him the Georgist
> perspective on the issue which I personally do not
> yet know about or articulated for myself and have
> not read if it exists.

Land rent is about 20% of GDP in the USA.  As taxes
have to substitute for foregone rent, unnecessary
taxes are a burden on the economy of 20% of GDP.
The administration and compliance costs and excess
burden of these taxes are also substantial.  How
much more efficient would it be to only pay for
government once instead of twice, with one of the
payments going to landowners in return for nothing?

-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>
>
> Is it any wonder that Georgism faces opposition when the scientific Georgists
(RL or is it LR ?and Walto) set out such a dystopian vision of nineteenth
century laissez-faire projected into the future?(aka Steampunk Georgism).
> The only hope of  family accommodation Walto has for the people who keep
central city services going is slums  since a three bedoom property on the
laissez faire open market is Ł2.5 million in central London (see Property watch
Website.

That's a significant misrepesentation of what I said, no?  But there's a sense
in which your point is correct.  I've been a state worker for nearly thirty
years, with places of employment all around Boston, at first in the State House.
I don't think the goal of economic policy should be to ensure that I can live in
Louisberg Square.  That's just silly.  I'd like to ensure that everybody can
afford a decent place to live and that natural resource rents go to the
citizenry rather than landlords.  You want to make sure that firemen get the
mansions.  Lots of luck with that: it's not only an absurd dream, the reality of
it would be just (or nearly) as unfair as the present situation.  The point is
not to create a "director of housing" whose intuitions of who should live where
happen to line up with your own.

That view isn't even socialist.  It's Reedist.

W

W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
<dbcreed@...> wrote:

> And another thing: this insouciant statement from
> RL is a recipe for exponential land-price inflation,
> "It does n't matter if aggregate rents increase a
> bit;land holders will just have to pay a bit more
> rent and everyone will just get a bit bigger
> individual exemption".

Like most of David's claims, that is false and absurd.
On what basis would people be willing to pay
exponentially more for land?  They wouldn't be keeping
any significant amount of its rent, and a modest amount
of good land would be available, for free, to everyone.
Where is the motive to bid up prices?

-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
<dbcreed@...> wrote:

> Is it any wonder that Georgism faces opposition
> when the scientific Georgists (RL or is it LR?and
> Walto) set out such a dystopian vision of
> nineteenth century laissez-faire projected into
> the future?(aka Steampunk Georgism).

??  David, what on earth are you blathering about?

What is dystopian about recovering publicly created
land rent for public purposes, leaving privately
created value in the hands of its private producers,
and securing the equal rights of all to life,
liberty and opportunity?  Is it just that your
personal architectural preferences and views of who
should be living in Georgian mansions would not be
enshrined permanently in the Constitution?

> The only hope of  family accommodation Walto has
> for the people who keep central city services
> going is slums  since a three bedoom property on
> the laissez faire open market is Ł2.5 million in
> central London (see Property watch Website.

That is a strawman fallacy, a false dichotomy
fallacy, and a claim contrary to fact all in a
single sentence. Here are four three-bedroom houses
in Central London, all for sale at less than Ł400K:

http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?submit_type=search&tag=&search_form=keyword&resu\
lt_view=&per_page=10&order_by=price_desc&new_homes_id=&search_type=SS&price_from\
=&price_to=400000&bedrooms=3&bedrooms_max=3&prop_type=houses&keyword_value=Centr\
al+London

> BTW as the scientific Georgists are laying down
> the law about Central London should n't they be
> providing the figures?

I have provided figures, and their sources.  You
have not.  Simple.

> There are for instance no slums in central London,
> something their research methods fail to pick up).

I'm from Vancouver.  Most of England looks like
a slum to me.

[snide irrelevancies snipped]

> As to the RL solution of knocking all the old
> property down in central London .. what can you
> say?

You can either provide a direct, verbatim,
in-context quote where I advocated "knocking all
the old property down in central London," or admit
that you are lying about what I have plainly
written.  Failure to do the former will
constitute doing the latter -- and you will not be
doing the former.

> (but please note that it is not my personal
> preference to conserve heritage buildings:it is
> the political consensus).

A consensus engineered by those who have a personal
pecuniary interest in pushing up the prices of
housing they just happen to own, perhaps...?

> BTW I would like to be spared this kind of
> linguistic nightmare( from RL)

??  LOL!  This, from the fellow who refuses to
punctuate correctly, making his "contributions" to
the forum all but unreadable???

> "We are just willing to know that not all
> residences in Central London are as land-value
> intensive as the Georgian terraces and mansions"
> What does this mean ?"We would like to think...
> though we have no evidence"?

No, it means that we are aware of the relevant
facts of objective reality, and are not engaged in
trying to oust them from our brains.

> "Scientific" Georgism : Ruthless laissez-faire;

Strawman fallacy.

> no not-for-profit housing;

Strawman fallacy.

> no affordable housing in inner cities except slums;

Strawman fallacy.

> none of the traditional domestic architecture that
> gives places their character;

Strawman fallacy -- and an absurd claim that places
had no character until the current architecture was
built there, and will have none if it is replaced.

> all sites of natural beauty to be built up:

Strawman fallacy.

> and in a throwaway ,snide comment from  RL no
> trade unions.

Strawman fallacy.

Please let me know, David, if you ever tire of just
makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.

-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:

> That is a strawman fallacy, a false dichotomy
> fallacy, and a claim contrary to fact all in a
> single sentence. Here are four three-bedroom houses
> in Central London, all for sale at less than Ł400K:
>
>
http://www.foxtons.co.uk/search?submit_type=search&tag=&search_form=keyword&resu\
lt_view=&per_page=10&order_by=price_desc&new_homes_id=&search_type=SS&price_from\
=&price_to=400000&bedrooms=3&bedrooms_max=3&prop_type=houses&keyword_value=Centr\
al+London
>

Roy, those places are not in Central London. They are in the east. They have "E"
postcodes. An estate agent exaggerating?  Especially Foxtons.  Never!

I live on the perimeter of Central London in a one bedroom apartment in a 100
year old block, that has seen better days.  I am yards from the Abbey Road
studios, with a constant stream of tourist walking across the road crossing
taking photos - even in the snow!  With a full lease it is worth, in a depressed
CC market, Ł450,000. The two bedroomed apartments in the block go for Ł550,000. 
In the modern block opposite, the equivalent sized apartments sell for Ł100,000
more. A large 3 bedroomed apartment in an adjacent block sold for Ł2.5 million.

My lease is short and needs extending at a rip-off Ł95,000, making the flat
worth approx Ł350,000.  Leasehold is rent - and as I found out, a license to
print money.  The 3 bedroomed houses around me go for many, many millions. Paul
McCartney lives just around the corner, I see him in the street occasionally,
who bought his place for Ł25-30,000 in 1964/65 and is now worth about Ł35-40
million.

Rich Russians have bought up many large houses in central London.  They use
London as their base.  It is the only major city where you can buy a sizable
house, with a garden, in the centre.

Few low wage earners live in central London, unless they are a janitor with an
apartment thrown in. Leave the job and the accommodation is lost.  There are the
odd social housing blocks around in central London. They look like social
housing as well. Getting one of them is like winning the lottery.

London has an excellent rapid-transit underground rail system. However the high
cost of tickets precludes many from using it. This makes London a collection of
cities with the populations staying mainly inside each city. Those in the east
rarely go to the west, or even the centre.  London has many large ethnic groups.
These tend to group together staying in London in poor quality, expensive,
accommodation for the social and ethic cultural aspect. The houses you posted
would most probably fall into these ethnic districts.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>
>
> Much as you have to admire Walto's urbane unruffled style,his accusation (more
gentle chiding) that I significantly misrepresented what he had to say is a tad
ungracious.I do not think that the inference that I drew from his contention
viz."generally inner cities contain slums as well as mansions" i.e.that slums
with  low land values might be seen as a benefit to ,or hope for the low-paid in
>search of accommodation, is  much of an exaggeration (at worst).

It was a misrepresentation because my point was not that anybody should live in
slums, but that median housing prices reflect slums as well as mansions. 
(Averages, less so, becuase they can be yanked way up by the high end.)



>
> As  claims for scientific objectivity have been loudly made by the
Langstonians (or one of them), it is a pity that the friendly warnings to  check
the facts were not heeded before their disastrous excursion into London property
prices led to the smash-up of their whole argument (following John Burns
Curtis's well-informed and nuanced intervention).  I drew the Langstonians'
attention to the London Property Watch.co .uk figures early on,besides which, it
is really up to the prosecution (guess who) to adduce the factual evidence ,not
the defence (me).I also pointed up the existence of the City of Westminster
Conservation areas web-site which carries photos of all the Central London
addresses but these were evidently not viewed by RL who came up with Foxtons'
photos of places in the East End . Do these places even look remotely similar?
>
> Underneath the heaps of reckless ad hominem abuse, sarcasm and one-liner
dismissals of complex issues from RL, my original  point, that the only hope for
the low paid (public or private sector) in Central London is in not- for-profit
housing, remains . The counsel of despair from Walto ,that the lower-paid will
probably never be able to live near their work in the centre of cities, is
belied by the historical fact that socialists,radicals and rich philanthopists
have always  provided housing there at below market prices.
>


My point was largely this--your result-oriented proposal, even if you could get
it enacted (which is highly unlikely unless the likely recipients of your
subsidies get total control of policy), just reshuffles a rigged deck.  You
replace one unfair distribution of goods with another equally (or nearly
equally) unfair distribution of goods.  You want people in certain professions
to get the mansions, because, well, it satisfies your intuitions of niceness. 
It's positively Kerenskyan.

My goal is somewhat different.  As I said in my last post, it's to ensure that
(i) no natural resource rents are monopolized, and (ii) everybody can get a
decent place to live.  I don't think that either you or I (or even some Duma)
should be placing people in mansions based either on our intuitions of what
might be nice or even grant applications.

W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
wrote:

> Roy, those places are not in Central London. They are
> in the east. They have "E" postcodes. An estate agent
> exaggerating?  Especially Foxtons.  Never!

Fine.  What postal codes do YOU claim define "central"
London?  Or just do your own search on your preferred
agents' site.

-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
>
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
> wrote:
>
> > Roy, those places are not in Central London. They are
> > in the east. They have "E" postcodes. An estate agent
> > exaggerating?  Especially Foxtons.  Never!
>
> Fine.  What postal codes do YOU claim define "central"
> London?  Or just do your own search on your preferred
> agents' site.

W1, SW1 are central London - the City of Westminster and the City of London
(London is actually only one square mile). Parts of W2, NW8 (where I am), NW1,
SW5 (or is it 6?) EC1 border the centre.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...>
wrote:

> As  claims for scientific objectivity have been loudly
> made by the Langstonians (or one of them), it is a
> pity that the friendly warnings to  check the facts
> were not heeded before their disastrous excursion into
> London property prices led to the smash-up of their
> whole argument (following John Burns Curtis's
> well-informed and nuanced intervention).

Oh, please.  I have provided the facts and my argument
is untouched.  David has made unsupported claims and
drawn false and absurd conclusions.  He claimed the
universal individual land tax exemption would not make
accommodation significantly more affordable for ordinary
people working in Central London.  I proved him wrong
with actual facts.  He then retreated to a claim based
on HOUSE PRICES -- what on earth is a single family
detached house doing in central London, and how on earth
are current speculative prices based on land value
supposed to be relevant to prices in a rent repayment
system that reduces land's capital value to a derisory
level? -- which I again showed to be misleading if not
fanciful.

> I drew the Langstonians' attention to the London
> Property Watch.co .uk figures early on,besides which,
> it is really up to the prosecution (guess who) to
> adduce the factual evidence ,not the defence (me).

LOL!  Does David really think he can shift the burden
of proof off all his claims by such a transparent ruse?

> I also pointed up the existence of the City of
> Westminster Conservation areas web-site which carries
> photos of all the Central London addresses but these
> were evidently not viewed by RL who came up with
> Foxtons' photos of places in the East End . Do these
> places even look remotely similar?

As usual, David claims to have "pointed" to evidence
for his claims without ever having actually provided
any.  Whether conservation area houses "look similar" is
hardly germane -- they SHOULD look different, as that's
allegedly why they are worth conserving.  David's
unsupported claim was that one could not buy a three-
bedroom house in central London for less than 2.5M
-- and remember, his argument is not just that SFD houses
on grossly under-utilized land are grossly unaffordable,
but that people who work at ordinary jobs in central
London can't afford to live close to their places of
work, and wouldn't be able to in a land rent recovery
system with a universal individual exemption, either.
THAT claim remains unsupported, silly cavils over postal
codes (!) notwithstanding.

> Underneath the heaps of reckless ad hominem abuse,
> sarcasm and one-liner dismissals of complex issues
> from RL,

Cast out first the beam that is in thine own eye, David.

> my original  point, that the only hope for the low
> paid (public or private sector) in Central London is
> in not- for-profit housing, remains.

It remains, all right: it remains without evidence.

> The counsel of despair from Walto ,that the lower-paid
> will probably never be able to live near their work in
> the centre of cities,

Strawman fallacy.

> is belied by the historical fact that socialists,
> radicals and rich philanthopists have always  provided
> housing there at below market prices.

More claims without evidence ("always"? really?), and an
admission that affordable housing is ALREADY available in
central London even WITHOUT land rent recovery to bring
prices down.

-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
>
>
> Is it any wonder that Georgism faces
> opposition when the scientific Georgists

> Had they researched the City of Westminster
> conservation areas web-site I drew their
> attention to ,they would have noticed a reference
> to Peabody.An American philanthropist with a
> massive fortune from trading in cotton through
> the Liverpool connexion ,Peabody began (circa 1860!)
> the non-market solution to the problem of London
> slums by building not-for-profit apartments (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody

I believe Europe's first "public" housing was in Liverpool, St Martin's Cottages
in 1869:
http://www.scottiepress.org/projects/martinplq.htm

Socialism, to its credit, did eliminate grinding poverty, David views it should
not be degraded or overlooked, as it worked.

In the wake of the industrial revolution, a tier of mass poverty emerged.  Read
Dickens.  Read about Victorian Liverpool, New York and London.  Immensely rich
cities with immerse grinding poverty. People tried to understand why in the wake
of great technical progress and mass production of products this level of
poverty could not be eliminated.

Henry George was one, Karl Marx another. Many isms emerged to put the world
right.  WW1 and WW2 could be viewed as the culmination of the negative aspects
of the industrial revolution in the isms to put right the fallout of the
"industrial revolution".

Socialism did stop that "grinding poverty level" for sure. It has eliminated
mass ignorance as well, through promoting education.

The current system we have is largely the same as in Victorian times.  Remove
the socialst/welfare policies in the current system and it is clear we go right
back to Dickens. I think David fears this. So do I.

Henry George identified the cause of grinding poverty as land and its resources.
The fruits of which were being creamed off by a few, and still is.  He
identified that the free-market created this wealth, so it must stay. It was
eliminating the negative aspects that corrupted and unstabilized the
free-market.  He successfully pinned it down.  Many socialists in the 1800s and
up to this day, blamed the free-market for the grinding poverty level, and
understandably so - they were wrong.

It was:

1. Not reclaiming community created wealth that soaked
    into Land and its resources for community services.
2. Taxing people's efforts.

If Geogist policies are implemented (LVT is at it core), Speculation is near
eliminated on a vital aspects of the economy - LAND and its resources.  People
get to own land more easily, housing is then cheaper with more owner occupation
- planning laws must assist Georgist policies.

Georgist policies can be strangled at birth by strict planning regulations.  In
the UK large landowners campaigned to have strict planning laws herding over 60
million into 7.5% of the land mass, ramping up land and housing prices, and they
kept their lucrative rural acres. Those who advocate Geoism had better look at
the bigger picture. Implementing Geoist policies in the UK would make an impact
on housing and land, but far from what you might think. Strangling peripheral
laws must be eliminated or rolled back.

With Geoism, people are not taxed on their efforts by removing income tax.  The
economy grows and becomes stable. Economic growth infrastructure, such as
rapid-transit rail in cities, is easily affordable, reclaiming publicly created
wealth.

The state then has to interfere less to pull people out of grinding poverty. 
Georgist policies will do most of that, if not all. Socialist policies will be
there but used less as people become more in control of their own lives and
destinies.  They will have little need to fall back on the state's socialist
safety net (you can replace the word socialist for welfare if you like).

There will be no need for high taxes (high LVT) as much of the current state
spending is vastly reduced.  The state recedes into the background.

The state can still run large monopolies under Geoism without any problems, (I
dislike private monopolies, as the free market is for them) such as the NHS,
national rail networks, telephones, etc. These are essential services creating
economic growth.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

> As I said.  David's suggestion that "Central London"
> has nothing but high-end digs seemed odd to me too,
> but I haven't been there since 1974.

On a wider note.  The UK government had a deliberate policy of making London a
super-city.  A major world-city.  Other cities in the UK suffered, Liverpool and
Manchester clearly did.  Liverpool, from being richer than London at one point
near slid into the river Mersey.

Public Money was poured into London in mainly the infrastructure. It has 5
airports.  A skewed calulation of economic growth - bang-for-buck - was set up
to justify pouring money into London.   A city surrounded by small rural market
towns in the bottom right hand corner of the country, away from the main
industrial base.  Fred Harrison pulls this to bits.

In the 1950s Liverpool and Manchester clearly togther were wealthier than
London.  Not today. All sorts of lame excuses were dreampt up to explain the
fall of these two cities and the "inexplicable" rise of London.  Most sucked it
in and believed it.

London is a black hole. It sucks in public money at the expense of others and
the bright people of the rest of the country.  As a result accommodation prices
are horrendous.

We have many problems in the UK that need adressing:

1. The planning policies are a means to control the population not promote
quality environments and accomodation.

2. Black hole London sucking the life out of the rest of the country.

3. Leasehold.  This is a licence to print money for freeholders.  It wuill force
me out of an apartment, which I am supposed to "own" into rented accommodation
in my old age and right out of the area I have lived most of my life.  I am not
alone in this, I am just a given example.

LVT will not solve the above points.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John"
<burns-john@...> wrote:

> W1, SW1 are central London

"3 Bedrooms  Ł1,475,000 Brendon Street, Marylebone, W1
A spectacular three bed freehold house in W1 with
plenty to offer. Spacious,bright & beautifully
presented with balcony & roof terrace."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?pc=W1&s=11&t=3b

"3 Bedrooms  Ł1,275,000 Gloucester Street, Pimlico, SW1
A charming and spacious three bedroomed mid-terrace
house benefits from two cellars, a light well and a
large kitchen with dining area. Freehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?pc=SW1&s=11&t=3b

> Parts of W2,

"3 Bedrooms  Ł1,399,999 Southwick Mews, Hyde Park Estate,
W2  Tucked away on a peaceful mews, this stylish three
bedroomed house offers exquisitely renovated interiors
and boasts a fabulous location close to Hyde Park and
Oxford Street. Freehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?pc=W2&s=41&t=3b

> NW8 (where I am),

"3 Bedrooms  Ł1,149,950 Rutland Mews, St John's Wood, NW8
A delightful Three Bedroom house set within a quiet and
secluded mews behind electric gates. The property offers
two large double bedrooms, a separate study, two
bathrooms, a 19ft reception leading onto a balcony and
semi-open plan kitchen."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?pc=NW8&s=21&t=3b

> NW1,

"3 Bedrooms  Ł1,100,000 Sunny Mews, Primrose Hill, NW1
This superb development of six stylish three bedroomed
mews houses have been finished to the highest standard
and offer stunning interior design as well as an
exclusive location in Primrose Hill. Freehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?pc=NW1&s=31&t=3b

> SW5 (or is it 6?)

"3 Bedrooms  Ł1,050,000 Old Manor Yard, SW5
A beautifully refurbished three bedroom mews house
flooded with natural light and offering a fantastic
balance of living/entertaining space."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=sw5&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

> EC1 border the centre.

"3 Bedrooms  Ł775,000 Wynyatt Street, Islington, EC1
This spacious four storey, three bedroomed house offers
generous living space along with a private garden and
occupies a highly sought-after location. Freehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?pc=EC1&s=11&t=3b


So even in the most expensive area of central London,
a three-bedroom house can be bought for more than Ł1M
less than David claimed, and the prices go down from
there.  If these hypothetical working-class people who
can't buy a 3BR house for less than Ł2.5M are able to
survive the shame of owning a leasehold apartment
rather than needing a separate house and freehold land
of their own, 3BR accommodation can be bought much,
much cheaper, even in the toniest locations:

"3 Bedrooms  Ł795,000 Hampden Gurney Street,
Marylebone, W1  A spacious three bedroom apartment.
Master bedroom with En-suite. Close to Marble Arch.
Comes with underground parking."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=w1&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

"3 Bedrooms  Ł365,000 Chaucer House, Churchill Gardens,
Pimlico, SW1  3 Bedroom flat for sale in Pimlico; A good
size three-bedroom fourth floor flat located close to
Pimlico tube station and the amenities of Lupus Street."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=sw1&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

"3 Bedrooms  Ł349,950 Hall Place, Paddington, W2
Offering a great location close to bustling Edgeware Road,
this fabulous three bedroomed upper maisonette is set
within a purpose-built block and is found well presented
with spacious and bright accommodation. Leasehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=w2&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

"3 Bedrooms  Ł355,000 Abbey Road, St John's Wood, NW8
Situated on London's famous Abbey Road, this fantastic
three bedroomed duplex flat is found well presented
throughout with spacious rooms and a great location
moments from the shops and cafes of Boundary Road."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=nw8&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

"3 Bedrooms  Ł310,000 Marquis Road, Camden, NW1
Set within a purpose-built block, this fabulous three
bedroomed second floor flat offers bright and spacious
accommodation with a communal garden, found in a
convenient location close to Camden Town and King's
Cross."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=NW1&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

"3 Bedrooms  Ł475,000  Old Brompton Road, Earls Court, SW5
Located in an attractive red brick mansion building, this
is a bright and spacious two bedroomed flat featuring
neutrally decorated accommodation with contemporary
fittings and access to patio (undemised). Leasehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=sw5&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

"3 Bedrooms  Ł275,000 Tompion Street, Clerkenwell, EC1
A great three bedroomed third floor flat benefiting from
well proportioned rooms, balcony, communal garden and a
superb location on Tompion Street. Leasehold."

http://www.londonpropertywatch.co.uk/s/f?q=EC1&t=3b&minp=0&maxp=10000000&c=p

Even assuming NO increase in supply or reduction in prices
subsequent to implementation of LVT, it strains credulity
to claim that people working as nurses, firemen, teachers,
etc. can't afford to buy accommodation in the low six
figures.

-- Roy Langston