- ... In most cases the cities subsidize the rural areas in many aspects. Many young people are forced into London and into the hands of the property sharks. TheMessage 1 of 7 , Apr 23, 2012View Source--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
> You're right that the ruralIn most cases the cities subsidize the rural areas in many aspects. Many young people are forced into London and into the hands of the property sharks. The antiquated property laws makes it easy for these sharks to operate.
> communities shouldn't be subsidizing
> the cities. However, with LVT, I'd
> think those cities could pretty much
> maintain themselves. An awful lot of
> monopolized rent there.
The virtually unique to England Wales, leasehold the deeply flawed form of tenure, is increasing more rapidly than at any stage since feudal times. With apartments accounting for a greater proportion of new homes than ever before.
Changing these unjust laws is not even on the governments radar. At least in NY they have better property laws than the UK.
- I disagree. We in the cities subsidize the rural areas with roads, utilities etc. to near-nowhere. It is FAR more efficient to live in a block of apartments,Message 2 of 7 , Apr 23, 2012View SourceI disagree. We in the cities subsidize the rural areas with roads, utilities etc. to near-nowhere. It is FAR more efficient to live in a block of apartments, than in a stand-alone house, sharing utilities with maybe a dozen people per mile. In fact, we here in Common Ground-NYC are trying to free up vacant land by taxing it at the same rate as built-upon land.
It is far more inefficient to maintain highways and polluting cars than mass transit on city streets.
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Dodson" ejdodson@ wrote:
> > Scott, you wrote:
> > With a <1% vacancy rate, little credit to either potential builder or
> > potential home-buyer, the rents are getting as high as the high-rises in
> > Manhattan. They now AVERAGE over $3,400/month, even with people using
> > living rooms as a second bedroom. Yesterday, during an Earth Day outreach
> > effort, someone said to us "Good! There should be vacant land in the city!"
> > He rushed off before I could call him a greedy speculator, but....is it
> > wrong to say that attitude is what's destroying the country and is
> > unsustainable? What will it take.
> > Ed Dodson here:
> > One of the characteristics that makes New York City so unique is the
> > constant influx of new residents (including immigrants from other
> > countries). Somewhere around 2000 the City of New York ran out of
> > publicly-owned land available for housing. From that point on, the City had
> > to compete for land with private developers who had no interest in
> > developing affordable housing. New York is unique in many ways, but not in
> > the way that all property owners look to property equity as a primary source
> > of individual financial wealth.
> Didn't NY has LVT at one time?
> The problem with these financial mega-cities around the world, NY, London, Tokyo, etc, is that accommodation become scare and super-expensive. With modern telecoms there is no need to concentrate all into one mega-city. London is a brain and talent drain on the UK. 50% of the UKs transport budget is spent in the city. It is not healthy for a country to maintain these cities.