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

Re: ( Destruction of ) London Squares by "Scientific " Georgism

Expand Messages
  • roy_langston1
    ... 3 Bedrooms £1,475,000 Brendon Street, Marylebone, W1 A spectacular three bed freehold house in W1 with plenty to offer. Spacious,bright & beautifully
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 12, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John"
      <burns-john@...> wrote:

      > W1, SW1 are central London

      "3 Bedrooms £1,475,000 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 £1,275,000 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 £1,399,999 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 £1,149,950 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 £1,100,000 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 £1,050,000 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 £775,000 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 £1M
      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 £2.5M 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 £795,000 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 £365,000 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 £349,950 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 £355,000 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 £310,000 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 £475,000 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 £275,000 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
    • roy_langston1
      ... Socialism is not government spending on poverty relief. It is collective ownership of the means of production. It was the former that eliminated grinding
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 12, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
        wrote:

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

        Socialism is not government spending on poverty relief.
        It is collective ownership of the means of production.
        It was the former that eliminated grinding poverty, not
        the latter. The latter has never eliminated grinding
        poverty, and has often caused or aggravated it.

        > Socialism did stop that "grinding poverty level" for
        > sure.

        No. It was government spending on poverty relief
        within capitalist economies that stopped grinding
        poverty. Socialism has never, and can't, produce the
        required wealth.

        > It has eliminated mass ignorance as well, through
        > promoting education.

        Now that is true, as capitalism can't generate
        sufficient investments in human capital such as
        education and health care, because human beings can't
        be owned. There was widespread grinding poverty in
        socialist countries like the USSR and PRC, but at
        least most people learned how to read.

        > 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.

        If you think Dickens is scary, try Orwell. That's my
        fear. North Korea has proved it can be done.

        > Henry George identified the cause of grinding poverty
        > as land and its resources.

        Lack of the liberty to use them, you mean.

        > 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.

        And most were not smart enough to understand George's
        analysis, which IMO is beyond the average person's
        intellectual capacity.

        > Georgist policies can be strangled at birth by
        > strict planning regulations.

        There is certainly a large element of truth here.
        Rent cannot be recovered if the most productive use
        is prohibited by law.

        > In the UK large landowners campaigned to have strict
        > planning laws herding over 60 million into 7.5% of
        > the land mass,

        And most of it restricted to far below highest and
        best use. In Vancouver's downtown, one of the most
        livable and desirable locations in the world,
        population density is over 15K/km^2. At that density,
        the UK's 60M would fit in less than _2%_ of the land
        area. Planning laws have more often held density down
        than boosting it up.

        > ramping up land and housing prices,
        > and they kept their lucrative rural acres.

        The urban acres they kept became even more lucrative.

        > 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.

        It's landowner privilege that makes those laws so hard
        to change: they are too lucrative for the powerful.

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

        As soon as the LVT was reduced, the problems requiring
        government expenditures to remedy would reappear. This
        has happened repeatedly in history.

        -- Roy Langston
      • John
        ... Depending on the level of socialism, it is collective control of the means of production. For e.g., the UKs Labour Party has the free-market system
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 12, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@>
          > wrote:
          >
          > > Socialism, to its credit, did eliminate grinding
          > > poverty, David views it should not be degraded or
          > > overlooked, as it worked.
          >
          > Socialism is not government spending on poverty relief.
          > It is collective ownership of the means of production.
          > It was the former that eliminated grinding poverty, not
          > the latter. The latter has never eliminated grinding
          > poverty, and has often caused or aggravated it.

          Depending on the level of socialism, it is collective "control" of the means of production. For e.g., the UKs Labour Party has the free-market system running very well, and always did. It is no coincidence that grinding poverty ended when socialism came about. Higher Education for all was a socialist policy, as was free at point of use health care. Education has assisted in eliminating grinding poverty.

          > > It has eliminated mass ignorance as well, through
          > > promoting education.
          >
          > Now that is true, as capitalism can't generate
          > sufficient investments in human capital such as
          > education and health care, because human beings can't
          > be owned. There was widespread grinding poverty in
          > socialist countries like the USSR and PRC, but at
          > least most people learned how to read.

          > > 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.
          >
          > If you think Dickens is scary, try Orwell. That's my
          > fear. North Korea has proved it can be done.

          Well both then. :)

          > > Henry George identified the cause of grinding poverty
          > > as land and its resources.
          >
          > Lack of the liberty to use them, you mean.

          ..and the extraction of wealth of land and its resources

          > > 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.
          >
          > And most were not smart enough to understand George's
          > analysis, which IMO is beyond the average person's
          > intellectual capacity.

          You have a point. But the key of Geoism is LVT. The average person "can" understand how the value got into the land - from the community - and that reclaiming that wealth is just. They are also sold on no income tax and reclaiming community created wealth in its place.

          The average person can understand that the bricks on the land (which depreciate) are separate from the land (which appreciates).

          The problem is getting around their conditioning, as they believe land is capital like a washing machine to be bought and sold and treated the same.

          Another is the owner/occupier who sees his home (well the land, but he can't see that) appreciate in value every year. Convince him we should change the system. It is like talking to the wall.

          > > Georgist policies can be strangled at birth by
          > > strict planning regulations.
          >
          > There is certainly a large element of truth here.
          > Rent cannot be recovered if the most productive use
          > is prohibited by law.
          >
          > > In the UK large landowners campaigned to have strict
          > > planning laws herding over 60 million into 7.5% of
          > > the land mass,
          >
          > And most of it restricted to far below highest and
          > best use. In Vancouver's downtown, one of the most
          > livable and desirable locations in the world,
          > population density is over 15K/km^2. At that density,
          > the UK's 60M would fit in less than _2%_ of the land
          > area. Planning laws have more often held density down
          > than boosting it up.

          In the UK overall density is high. The UK has approx 60 million acres, with a population of 60 million, roughly 1 person per acre. Germany is about the same, France is approx 0.5 people per acre. Yet, the average density of people on one residential UK acre is 12 to 13. Less in the suburbs and more in the centres.

          > > There will be no need for high taxes (high LVT) as
          > > much of the current state spending is vastly reduced.
          >
          > As soon as the LVT was reduced, the problems requiring
          > government expenditures to remedy would reappear. This
          > has happened repeatedly in history.

          Remedy what?
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.