... Ireland had a house-building boom much like the USA, but proportionally even bigger. New construction value tends to be at least double land value, andMessage 1 of 21 , Jun 12, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Emer <emerosiochru@...> wrote:
> Mostly it is difficult to be sure and precise about what someone else asserts is entirely wrong. In this case, I will allow myself that indulgence in regards to the response to the email discussion before.Ireland had a house-building boom much like the USA, but proportionally even bigger. New construction value tends to be at least double land value, and can be far higher when a greenfield site is subdivided. So obviously, a lot of new house construction will make "housing" more expensive on average EVEN IF LAND VALUE STAYS CONSTANT (of course, subdivision skyrockets land value). Consequently, without a much more detailed argument and supporting statistics that disaggregate land value and improvement value, it is premature to conclude that Ireland's "fabulously lax planning laws" did not in fact make LAND for housing more affordable, net of the credit-fueled speculation bubble. Wait until all those new houses have depreciated a bit, and see if average housing prices don't return to more normal levels.
> You are entirely wrong Sir. The facts contradict you. Look at Ireland with widespread ownership of land and fabulously lax planning laws. The people did expand into the countryside out of cities. Was housing cheap - No. Housing reached incredible price levels - until the bust.
> Your rhetoric does not help us, on the contrary.See above. One must be very careful about drawing such conclusions.
-- Roy Langston
John, One of the problems of subsidies is that the industry tends to be put in a time-lock, with little chance of change for the better. ProfessionalMessage 1 of 21 , Jun 12, 2012View SourceJohn,One of the problems of subsidies is that the industry tends to be put in a time-lock, with little chance of change for the better.Professional hydroponics farms produce mightily on little space. I recall an Arizona hydroponics farm that pointed out that it produces an annual 250,000 lbs of tomatoes per acre.Produced in tight greenhouses which keep out flying pests and free from soil pests because the plants grow in stones, this could lead to urban areas experiencing absolutely fresh supplies of fruits and vegetables on a continual basis. (Just so long as we have Rent collection to end million pounds an acre land prices by freeing land for economic use.)But the subsidy (which is obscene) fixes uneconomical production for generations.Harry********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:20 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, dspain@... wrote:
> Hi John:
> Interesting view.
> Please elucidate the legislation & mechanisms whereby, in addition> to the town planning constraints, "taxes are used to reinforce this bizarre> situation by paying to keep land unused".
CAP European Common Agricultural Policy, etc. Farmers are paid to keep land idle - unproductive.
> Incidentally (as regards denser settlement of the countryside), I live on an> "intentional community" [aka hippie commune] structured as a co-operative in> NSW, which has unique State town planning legislation (State Environmental> Planning Policy 15) enabling denser settlement of "inferior" rural land.The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is £5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass. The money figures are about 8 years old so probably more by now. But the 17% is still about right.
This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the population of the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live amongst nature is highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land prices. This means lower house prices which the UK desperately needs.Land in The UK is protected by strict laws. 0.6% of the population own 70% of the land."Solving the land question means the solving of all social questions… Possession of land by people who do not use it is immoral - just like the possession of slaves."- Leo Tolstoy
... I knew some English guys who went to Ireland to build their own eco homes: passive solar, cess-pits, superinsulation, windmills, backup genny s, etc. TheyMessage 1 of 21 , Jun 13, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
> it is premature to conclude that Ireland'sI knew some English guys who went to Ireland to build their own eco homes: passive solar, cess-pits, superinsulation, windmills, backup genny's, etc. They were not tied to the utility infrastructure. Irish laws were far better accommodating than the appalling UK planning laws.
> "fabulously lax planning laws" did not in
> fact make LAND for housing more affordable,
The over 600 estates in Ireland were slaves to the infrastructure: sewer lines, electricity lines, gas lines, schools, shopping, etc. Infrastructure was primarily the responsibility of the state. Also many of them were built in places no one with sense would have built them - what were the developers thinking of? The same can be said for Spain.
... The good thing about all these new homes, is that eventually they will be occupied. Those in Ireland look larger than the rabbit hutches served up in theMessage 1 of 21 , Jun 13, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
> Wait until all those new houses haveThe good thing about all these new homes, is that eventually they will be occupied. Those in Ireland look larger than the rabbit hutches served up in the UK. So in a way, there is some preparation for the future. But the prices will drop to market dictated levels.
> depreciated a bit, and see if average
> housing prices don't return to more normal levels.
The UK never experienced what the USA, Ireland & Spain did, in having ghost estates, as the UK deliberately kept house prices high by creating an artificial land shortage. Although there many empty new apartments in all major cities, except London. Many are just plain tatty and small, built in a boom, so few want to know them. House prices were just too high in the UK. In real terms housing in London is 2.5 times more expensive than 30 years ago. If the UK did relax its planning to something sensible, the UK would have been full of ghost estates as well. That is not saying what the UK did was right and wise. The UK is short of homes to the tune of 1.5 million.
The ghost estates were not a result of a shortage of homes. The demand was actually there.
Quoting John on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:04:49 -0000: ___John___ The ghost estates were not a result of a shortage of homes. The demand was actually there. ... HowMessage 1 of 21 , Jun 13, 2012View SourceQuoting John on Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:04:49 -0000:
The ghost estates were not a result of a
shortage of homes. The demand was actually there.
How so? Were they pre-sold, then foreclosed, or financing
fell through, as was the case with Craig Mecham's Sugar Hole?