Re: Land value UK
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
>Agreed. I loathe buses.
> The Tube is the way to go if there is a "convenient" line near you - and you have deep pockets as it is not cheap. Why London never went for street trams that meshed in with the tube I don't know. Buses just do not do it. I hate getting bounced about on them.
> Manchester's Metrolink has a tram that pulls up onto a platform at Victoria Station for ease of changing from trains. Many surface Tube stations could have a tram platform. With Metrolink you can get on at Stockport and travel to Manchester on normal rail lines and stations, then the tram runs on the streets into the centre with street "stations".They absolutely do, that's why middle-class homeownerists would love trams to be built near them :) I think I read a study by Lincoln Institute or some other org once that put it in figures. Building a tram-line is a long-term commitment that has a huge effect on land-values, bus-routes can be cancelled by a whim. Developers around the turn of the 20th century built tram-lines to increase the value of their developments.
> Would land values rise around a new street running tram line? It think they would and moreso if the tram were ram/trains as in Manchester and they had dedicated runs and did not mix too much with other street traffic.
I think the problem with trams is that they are not as cost-effective as buses looking at ordinary revenues, more of the benefits are externalized, and will be ditched in the end if that value isn't captured. Thanks to vulgar-economics, tram-lines are constantly on the chopping blocks in cities everywhere.
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
> There is an enormous amount of urban land of all values which is presently held out of use at rack-rent (or higher) prices.It is held out of use in the hope of rezoning windfalls, which permitting development and use at the current permitted density would likely scotch for decades. As long as the long-term economic growth rate exceeds the tax rate, owning land increases the owner's net worth, so there is no reason to take a chance by permitting productive use.
> Such holdings would becomeRents already reflect that advantage, so they would not topple.
> available to producers and other users with adoption of full land Rent
> collection and Rents would topple to a point where they would accurately
> reflect the advantage provided by the surrounding population.
> You agree with me that present land rent is a 'monopoly rent'. I happen toIt's not appropriate, because what you are talking about is in fact rent.
> call it rack-rent because that seems to me to be an appropriate term.
> Your peculiar opposition to this seems to stem from your mistaken belief thatNo, YOUR peculiar theory stems from your mistaken belief that rent is rack-rent.
> with full Rent collection, rack-rent would remain. In fact, as I have stated, it would disappear.
> I don't know where you got your land-value taxation ideas from, but you treat it as simply a good way to tax.My UIE proposal proves that claim false. LVT is essential to equal human rights.
> The real intention of collecting RentNo, the real intention is to restore the EQUAL RIGHTS of all to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor, relieving the poverty of the less able by ensuring they have free, secure access to economic opportunity, and enabling the more able to rise as high as their productive contributions will carry them by relieving them of the burden of supporting the greedy, privileged, parasitic landowning overclass in exorbitant luxury. I am much more aware of that intention than you, as your opposition to my UIE proposal shows.
> (popularly, land-value taxing) is to produce a genuine equality of
> conditions for all, replacing the present rigged economy which condemns the
> less able to poverty and the more able to a lifetime of paying rack-rent.
> The object of full Rent collection is to take the first step towardsI do indeed.
> 'Liberty and Justice for All'. Reducing this to a simple tax advocacy diminishes its importance as a genuine reform.
> But, you probably know that.
-- Roy Langston