- ... There are two sides to this statement. One, it seems to me that for most of this thread you ve ignored this distinction. And two, on the other hand,Message 1 of 102 , Jul 5, 2011View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston1" <roy_langston1@...> wrote:
> Of course. But there's a difference betweenThere are two sides to this statement. One, it seems to me that for most of this thread you've ignored this distinction. And two, on the other hand, functionality and value are related.
> depreciation (loss of value) and deterioration (loss
> of functionality).
Of course though, when they do diverge its is mostly in the commercial rather than the residential situation. The specialty building (e.g. the bowling alley, may have a lot functionality but little value because no one (or hardly anyone) is bowling and bowling may not be the best use of the land. (There are no bowling only zoning restrictions.) But in the case of residential property, especially where there is zoning for residential (especially zoning for a particular kind of residential (single family) you have the "best use" and the relationship between function and value is pretty closely tied. People can niggle about zoning but in many ways zoning reflects the community/market choices, i.e. by and large we get the government we deserve and want until we change our minds.
> Just becauseJust say this out loud a few times over the course of a week. And you'll see how silly it sounds.
> a house may be nice and perfectly good to live in
> doesn't mean it has any value.
> If the property wouldThis is a sound generalization, but it doesn't flow in any way from your prior statement, either in theory or in practical terms.
> sell for the same price without or without the house,
> the house has no value. It's just that simple.
Nor does it deal with the super distressed neighborhood, where nobody wants to buy the empty lot next door either. There are times when the location is so bad that it really does create a negative externality. "That's a great house, but I just couldn't live their with my family because the schools are so bad and the crime is (or is perceived to be) so high and the taxes (that part that falls on improvements is so high in comparison to outside the city.)"
I think that perhaps there can be a situation where land value is, at times, negative.
- ... I don t recall him saying that, and it certainly isn t true. Many people will lose, especially in the transition period. That is why we must design theMessage 102 of 102 , Jul 18, 2011View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...>
> Henry George was adamant that full Land Value Tax,I don't recall him saying that, and it certainly isn't
> the Single Tax, would mean all would gain, no losers.
true. Many people will lose, especially in the
transition period. That is why we must design the
transition to be as painless as possible for the great
majority of landowners: those who own only the land
under their dwellings. And that is why restoring the
equal individual right to liberty through a universal
individual exemption (or, second best, a CD) is crucial
to our success. This is something Henry George either
did not understand or did not give enough weight to, or
the exemption would have been a central feature of his
Single Tax advocacy.
> All boats rise on the same rising tide.Er, those who can't be bothered swimming or walking are
drowned by a rising tide.
> * Will the corporations still be loyal to the US?Is a tapeworm loyal to its host?
> * Will they do everything to get the LVTYes. And that will include assassination. Let's not
> implementing government out?
kid ourselves on that score. This is serious business,
and the vital interests of some very powerful and
deeply evil people are at stake.
-- Roy Langston