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

Re: [LandCafe] Land Value Tax and the Education debate

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    Just pity poor Don Riley, property developer around the Jubilee Line extension stations, who saw his portfolio value rise by over £3bn when the line opened
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 23, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: [LandCafe] Land Value Tax and the Education debate

      "Just pity poor Don Riley, property developer around the Jubilee Line extension stations, who saw his portfolio value rise by over £3bn when the line opened"

      Let's stick to facts:
      Don Riley's portfolio did not rise by over £3nb!

      Don has not to my knowledge ever divulged his personal wealth but it is counted in millions not billions.

      Don's book "Taken for a Ride" shows the JLE increased ALL land values by circa £13bn in total around all 11 new stations. Canary Wharf station was the largest increase. 
      Don owns a few valuable properties between Southwark and London Bridge. Jones Lang LaSalle's estimate for Transport for London was that the total increase for all land around Southwark was circa £800m. Don's propetties are only a very small proportion of this.  

      I often joke that Don was a millionaire and that now thanks to taxpayers funding the JLE he is now a multi-millionaire - but don't let's confuse millions with billions! We'll just discredit ourselves. We have a solid, cast-iron case with the truth - we don't need to exaggerate with unbelievable figures.
      Best Wishes,

      Dave Wetzel
      Vice-Chair TfL
      Tel: 020 7126 4200
      Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

      -----Original Message-----
      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri Mar 17 21:30:26 2006
      Subject: [LandCafe] Land Value Tax and the Education debate


      >  Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:28:24 +0000
      >  From: Jock Coats <jock.coats@...>
      > Subject: Land Value Tax and the Education debate

      Too be fair, one should carefully look at the mathematics of public income
      per average family home (including average number of students) versus public
      *outgo.* Here in NJ, USA, the imbalance in over-costly public school outgo
      per student has caused an artificial land scarcity via zoning holdbacks.

      One should do this analysis before unconditionally endorsing any and all
      spending for extra government schooling regardless of added educational
      value per unit cost. (And before unconditionally condemning objectors.) It
      would be best if along with LVT/SVR, one could require cost efficient
      incentives that would prevent government school district budgets amounting
      to six to ten times the total annual rental value due to the government
      school system in the town.

      Here, the average family home property tax produces $2000 per year for the
      school district yet the average two student family costs the town roughly
      $20,000 in local revenue, not counting added contributions from the NJ State
      Income Tax.

      Recent global land assessments in my town were for $800 million, which
      should deliver roughly $48 million/yr in public goods rents, yet the
      government school district budget alone will top $60 millions this year.
      Don't forget, the school district budget is less than half the total local
      town, county and school public budget. Also don't forget, public goods
      investments are not the only source of LVT/SVR. If you alot at least half of
      land value to private demand/investment with the other half caused by public
      goods investments, you can see that in my area, the government school
      district budget costs far more than the value it is delivering.

      Anyway, the net result of these mathematics is that it has become very
      difficult to  purchase an inexpensive, land efficient building lot in most
      places in NJ. Town planners have resorted to amend the public income/outgo
      balance by requiring much larger building lots, like acre and multi-acre
      mini-estates; even new denser developments are built for the wealthy with
      luxury suites, not for affordable starter or just blue collar middle class
      folk. By zoning for sprawl development, public income goes up and expense
      goes down.

      Let me be clear that I'm not a crusader against government schools, and that
      I support a gradual transition to an education system with more cost
      incentives and customer choices - best would be a fungible Citizen's
      Dividend, imo. I understand the connection between public goods investment
      and SVR. However, I have seen and investigated the other extreme where a
      public good can cross the line into becoming a "public bad" where it makes
      living near the public good too expensive for the very people whom it should
      be serving.

      Since I'm not feeling well, I probably won't reply to this thread much. I
      just had to contribute because a few years ago I ran for School Board and
      investigated many of the associated issues. NJ's land and school problems
      are even more complex than this of course, but this is no place for a book.


      Chris Toto
      NJ, USA

      On 3/16/06 4:45 PM, "LandCafe@yahoogroups.com" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>

      >  Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:28:24 +0000
      >  From: Jock Coats <jock.coats@...>
      > Subject: Land Value Tax and the Education debate
      > Thursday, March 16, 2006
      > Land Value Tax and the Education debate
      > The education bill debates present a very good opportunity to show
      > how landowners (including home owners) gain from public
      > infrastructure investment for doing nothing and that taxing land
      > values would be a good way of recouping public infrastructure
      > investment more fairly through a market driven tax system...
      > Picture the scene. You've just moved into your quiet surburban semi
      > ready for your retirement. And the uncaring council comes along and
      > decides it's going to build a new school right across the road. You
      > get out your placards and march on the Town Hall to fight the
      > planning application. You find any reason you can why this
      > "predominantly elderly population area" does not need such a
      > development, that it will "blight your lives" and "adversely affect
      > property value in the vicinity" and so on. You might even fight on
      > beyond the "obviously biased" local councillors, to the High Court.
      > You are defeated. You settle down to a retirement of valium and
      > earplugs, you might even want to electrify the front drive just in
      > case any kids get too close. You can only just bear the construction
      > traffic. And the following year, this brand spanking new school takes
      > its first pupils, with everyone predicting great things from it. And
      > someone pops up on your doorstep one day having dodged the teen-
      > proofing on the driveway and offers you and extra £42,000 for your home.
      > You are a bit taken aback. After all, you had been confidently
      > informed by your friendly local amateur surveyor that the new school
      > would depress property values. Surely you just adding triple glazing
      > to keep the intolerable noise of happy children out wasn't worth
      > £42,000? Nothing you've done has added that sort of value. So you
      > ask..."why pay £42,000 more than for that house down the road there?"
      > "Because you're in the catchment area of this brand spanking new
      > school everyone's got high hopes for and I want my child to have the
      > best education i can afford. So I'm prepared to pay you, who hold a
      > monopoly on the only property for sale in the catchment area,
      > whatever price you name within reason."
      > You accept, realising, somewhat smugly, that your only contribution
      > to this little windfall was the prominence your anti-school campaign
      > brought to the new school.
      > Tax Payer -> Government investment -> Landowner
      > And it happens with most things. That new railway line making your
      > life hell? Just pity poor Don Riley, property developer around the
      > Jubilee Line extension stations, who saw his portfolio value rise by
      > over £3bn when the line opened (and now an advocate himself, by the
      > way, for LVT).
      > You just need to read any estate agent's property particulars to see
      > the sort of factors that affect land value, none of which the current
      > owner has any great part in - "walking distance from local shopping",
      > "20 minutes Northern Line to City", "easy access to motorway", "good
      > local educational and medical services" and so on.

      Check in here via the homepage at http://landcafe.org 
      To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
      & please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
      (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)

      Government tax auction <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+tax+auction&w1=Government+tax+auction&w2=Government+tax+lien&w3=Government+tax+lien+certificate&w4=Tax&w5=Land&c=5&s=109&.sig=ttZpynRPEeMIeX-ivkt_lQ>    Government tax lien <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+tax+lien&w1=Government+tax+auction&w2=Government+tax+lien&w3=Government+tax+lien+certificate&w4=Tax&w5=Land&c=5&s=109&.sig=FAFKKf3CzhwYjESpw1K38Q>          Government tax lien certificate <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Government+tax+lien+certificate&w1=Government+tax+auction&w2=Government+tax+lien&w3=Government+tax+lien+certificate&w4=Tax&w5=Land&c=5&s=109&.sig=AbyM1-_2iSiBgidjNQ0VSA>         
      Tax <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Tax&w1=Government+tax+auction&w2=Government+tax+lien&w3=Government+tax+lien+certificate&w4=Tax&w5=Land&c=5&s=109&.sig=JsSBJ4wqzV3aMYnVivyMbw>          Land <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Land&w1=Government+tax+auction&w2=Government+tax+lien&w3=Government+tax+lien+certificate&w4=Tax&w5=Land&c=5&s=109&.sig=HxYI12K8IDcNLucQV-fQHA>       



              *        Visit your group "LandCafe <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe> " on the web.
      *        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
      *        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


      The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

      If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.