... According to emptyhomes.com, you ve got 920.000 to fill up first, something which is easily corrected by you know what. And they definetly don t want toMessage 1 of 46 , Nov 28, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>According to emptyhomes.com, you've got 920.000 to fill up first, something which is easily corrected by you know what. And they definetly don't want to live in the Northwest, which has 130.000 of them. Granted, there are anti-market forces caused by not collecting rental values and regs getting in the way of using some of these homes.
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
> > but still the cheap ones stays on the
> > market for ages. It's figured out already,
> > people don't want to live there.
> The UK is desperately short of homes - like a few million or so. People do want to live in the countryside.
> The autonomous house is virtually here. Superinsulation, septic tanks, combined heat & power units, grey water re-cycling, rainwater harvesting, wireless communications, smart phones, amongst others, are all here. These houses have a low impact on the environment. Connection to urban utilities is no longer necessary. Locating homes with all modern conveniences, just about anywhere in the UK is now feasible. Herding the population into urban communities because they offered basic utilities no longer need be the case.Oh I agree, it's absolutely possible. And councils should award permission for such construction liberally. But this has been possible for ages, and even where self-building is common, people in general prefer to live in central, well serviced locations, with nice views and neighbours.
I can't really speak for the UK, maybe you're right, but here there is no drive at all for back-to-the-land, and people are clearly voting with their feets and pocketbooks. I live on the edge of a woodland, with a huge lot, just one third of a mile from a new development, with a pasture in between. I've got my own water and septic (a system that works fine, and is several decades old), while I'm serviced by grid-electricity, broadband, trash-pickups and a council road. Granted, my private access road is a bit rough, and large trees block out the evening sun. Still, the new development down the road, with postage-stamp gardens, has a land-value three to four times mine. The council charges the residents in the new development extra for water and sewage, which I don't have to pay, so this premium is pure location rent, with no relation whatsoever with any extra provisions on the side of local govt.
... It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch forMessage 46 of 46 , Dec 1 6:19 PMView Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.
> The real intention of collecting RentNo, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston