Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: London Squares under the Scientisitic Georgists

Expand Messages
  • walto
    ... 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. W
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed
      > <dbcreed@> wrote:
      >

      > >"...the universal individual LVT exemption would
      > > probably not be enough to make such tony locations
      > > affordable" (to hoi polloi who would in any case
      > > be too coarse to appreciate their sophisticated
      > > charms) But later on " The UI land rent exemption
      > > ensures everyone has a chance to live in Central
      > > London"
      >
      > That is of course not a self-contradiction at all.
      > It could only be a self-contradiction if there were
      > no residences in Central London with lower land
      > value per dwelling space than Georgian terraces --
      > a claim for which I will await evidence patiently,
      > but in vain --

      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.

      W
    • John
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 12, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.
      • roy_langston1
        ... Because landowner privilege makes this profitable for the privileged. Take away the profit motive by recovering publicly created land rent for public
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 12, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
          wrote:

          > 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.

          Because landowner privilege makes this profitable for
          the privileged. Take away the profit motive by
          recovering publicly created land rent for public
          purposes and benefit, and planning need no longer be
          a corrupt, indirect way of taking from the productive
          and giving to idle landowners.

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

          If the land rent created in London is recovered to pay
          for the services and infrastructure that create it, it
          is no longer an unrequited transfer of wealth from the
          productive rest of the country to the Duke of
          Westminster and his rich, privileged friends. The black
          hole is not London. It's landowner privilege.

          > 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.

          With LVT and a universal individual exemption, there is
          no license to print money, but equal liberty to use land.
          If in retirement you find yourself occupying more land
          than you can afford, you can just sell your improvements
          and buy another place on less pricey land nearby with the
          proceeds.

          > LVT will not solve the above points.

          Combined with a universal individual exemption to
          restore the right to liberty, yes, it will.

          -- Roy Langston
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.