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

QUick update on recent publications

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    1. Thanks to Roger Sealey (Transport and General Workers Union) and Dinos Kyrou (The Professional Land Reform Group) for drawing my attention to Martin Wolf s
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 9, 2006

      1.      Thanks to Roger Sealey (Transport and General Workers Union) and Dinos Kyrou (The Professional Land Reform Group) for drawing my attention to Martin Wolfs excellent article on land value tax which highlights Fred Harrisons book Wheels of Fortune in todays Financial Times. See full article below my signature.

      2.      Rana Roys new paper for the Railway Forum Investing in the new century: toward an undistorted appraisal process and Land Value tax. Available on:


      3.      nb IPPR pamphlet: Time for Land Value Tax?

          Brings together leading economists and political theorists to explore the case for and against land value taxation. The authors explore the benefits of a land value tax and trace the long history of the idea. Unfortunately they also suggest (I think wrongly) that there are political pitfalls and suggest that there is still some way to go to prepare the ground for such a radical shift.


          4. LandValueScape Update: Fiscal Crisis in UK: new book http://www.landvaluescape.org/archives/000072.html

          A new book The Fiscal Crisis in the United Kingdom by political economist Professor Iain McLean casts a light on the tax reform debate in Britain. Ian McLean shows a clear understanding of the role of land values in the broader
          economy and places this within the context of ongoing disputes over how
          affordable housing and accountable local government can be achieved.

      5.      Thanks to Martin Large for drawing my attention to Fordhall Farm, Market Drayton, Shropshire which will be sold to developers if a new community land trust, Fordhall Community Land Initiative is unable to buy the farm.
      If successful, the community farm buy
      -out will enable affordable access to the farm for both farmers (there are two young tenant  farmers) and the community-for access, paths, events, walks, wildlife, education, health, community groups, land based businesses. Fordhall will then be a pilot exemplar for what communities can do to reconnect
      with f
      arming, and secure land assets in perpetuity for community benefit.
      Buying a share
      for £50 to help with the buy-out (as a share in the FCLI Industrial and Provident Society) would really help. It took over 200,000 people to enable the Isle of Eigg community buy-out which kicked off the way to the 2002 Scottish Land Reform Act. For more details see the Fordhall website www.fordhallfarm.com

              Heather and I have been to Fordhall Farm for a very enjoyable working weekend planting hedges, cleaning recycled        bricks, gardening, litter-picking and re-varnishing benches. Its been in the same hands of tenant farmers for over 80  years   and they continued to farm on a sustainable basis when others moved to intensive farming. Great company         and enjoyable food! One of the cows was proudly showing off her 2-day old calf!


      6.      Evening Standard. Fri 29th May 2006. (Londons daily paper).

                  QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

                  Its nice that you take the trouble to come along and see municipal socialism in practice

                  Transport for London Vice-Chair Dave Wetzel welcomes the public to its board meeting.

          7.    Lecture and drinks reception. Wed 21st June.  (Drinks 6pm. Lecture 7pm 8pm).

          Sir Terry Farrell: Euston Road A Place Not A Through Road

          The German Gymnasium, Pancras Road, London. NW1 2TB. Tickets £10 from 0870 247 1207

          I met Terry Farrell recently and maybe someone could follow up by discussing his views on LVT (without mentioning me).

          8. Im now off to Canada for conferences and meetings including Metropolis in Toronto and the UN Habitat Conf in Vancouver (Im travelling on a 3-day journey across the Prairies and the Rockies by train with an observation car!).

          Keep in touch, Ill have my BlackBerry with me!

          Best Wishes,


      020 7126 4200

          Land tax is something to build on

          By Martin Wolf
          Published in the FT: June 8 2006

          How should one finance infrastructure? How should one decide what infrastructure to build? The answer to these two questions would appear self-evident: we should build infrastructure if benefits exceed the cost and we should finance it by taxing the beneficiaries.

          Who are those beneficiaries? Landowners is the answer. Land taxation is the natural, efficient and just way to finance the capital cost of infrastructure. That is the point of a thought-provoking pamphlet by Fred Harrison, research director of the Land Research Trust.*

          Consider a simple example. In a busy town the average house price is £300,000, of which half is the cost of building (or replacing) the house and the rest the value of the land. Some way away is an isolated village. Here the identical house costs £200,000, of which just £50,000 is the land value.

          Consider what would happen if a road were built, for the first time, between the town and the village. Residents of the town would want to move to the village to take advantage of the cheap houses and the amenities. Assume, for simplicity’s sake, that the benefit of the village’s amenities to the marginal movers offsets the cost of the extra time they would spend travelling. The price of village houses must jump by £100,000.

          Owners of the village housing will capture the benefit of taxpayer-funded road-building. To them this will be a massive windfall gain. In general, the rise in the price of land will account for most, if not all, of the capitalised value of the surplus of benefits over costs to users of the infrastructure.

          Often, as Mr Harrison shows, the benefit-cost ratio for infrastructure that improves accessibility of cities or mobility within them is very large. London’s Jubilee line cost £3.4bn to build, but raised land values in adjoining areas by close to £14bn. The benefits were evidently enormous. The same, no doubt, would be true of Crossrail, the endlessly postponed west-east rail link across London. The government’s 10-year transport plan would be another example: the cost was estimated at £180bn, but the gains to landowners might be far bigger.

          Thus, increases in land values give not only a good indication of the benefits of infrastructure investments, but also provide an efficient and just way of financing their costs. It is efficient to tax these values because the tax would reduce the size of a windfall, while other taxes used to pay for infrastructure reduce effort, penalise the division of labour or discourage capital accumulation. It is also just, because the chief beneficiaries would bear the cost.

          It is possible to charge users of infrastructure, as well. Where there is congestion or there are variable costs, such user charges are appropriate. But relying only on user pricing is undesirable if the infrastructure is then under-used. Often it is technically infeasible, as well: road use has long been an example.

          William Vickrey, the Nobel-laureate economist, was an exponent of charging landowners: thus “equity and efficiency are both served”, he argued, “by having landlords contribute to the network costs of the services so as to enable their prices to be brought closer to marginal costs. In the long run, the increased efficiency of the local economy would tend to redound to the benefit of the landlords by raising their market rents by more than the subsidy.”

          The use of the rise in the price of land as a means of defraying the cost of investment in infrastructure is easy when, as in Hong Kong, the government owns the ground. A monopoly private owner would also be able to internalise the benefits of the infrastructure investments he makes.

          In the UK, however, such voluntary methods would fail because of the incentives for enjoying a free ride on investments made by others. That is why a land tax related to site value is the simplest way of extracting benefits from large-scale public investment.

          The generation of data on land values is not impossible: Denmark has done it for 80 years. A simple way of financing local infrastructure would then be via a tax on site values. The revenue could go, in whole or in part, to the relevant local authorities. If the latter were also deprived of the right to vary the rate, they would have an incentive to make investments that raise land values and increase their revenue.

          At present, however, the lack of any easy means of raising finance is proving a huge obstacle to desirable investments. Then, when investment does take place, as with the Jubilee line, it merely pours vast windfall gains on landowners at the expense of taxpayers. The result has been a long history of inadequate investment and undue reliance on inherently damaging and unjust taxation. The UK is choking on the inadequacy of its own infrastructure. The time to make a change is now.

          Fred Harrison, Wheels of Fortune: Self-funding Infrastructure and the Free Market Case for a Land Tax, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2006


          This message contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. Thank you.

          Hyder cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed.

          Any opinions or other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the Company are neither given nor endorsed
          by it.

      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.