- Even with electric buses a dark and dreary underground bus station would not be an inviting prospect for bus passengers. Unlike an underground car park, busMessage 1 of 17 , Aug 1, 2006View SourceEven with electric buses a dark and dreary underground bus station would not be an inviting prospect for bus passengers. Unlike an underground car park, bus passengers arrive early and have to wait for their bus to arrive.
I'm suggesting in order to attract motorists from cars to bus we should be arguing that LVT would encourage the best possible design standards - better than anything the profit-driven capitalist system can provide.
In London we are trying to improve our transport system, with over 6m bus passengers a day, we have already achieved a 40% growth in bus patronage since the Mayor was first elected in 2000 and a 4% modal shift from car to public transport.
Tel: 020 7126 4200
- I live in Chelsea in London in a house built in 1880 (now converted into flats) surrounding a park or, as we call it, a garden square. Those of you who knowMessage 2 of 17 , Aug 1, 2006View Source
I live in Chelsea in London in a house built in 1880 (now converted into flats) surrounding a park or, as we call it, a garden square. Those of you who know London will know that the inner city contains hundreds of such squares the earliest dating from the 18th century (Covent Garden which copied the Place de Voges in Paris was earlier though it consisted not of lawns but of trees planted in gravel) and the most recent from the 1930s.
At the time the developers, often landed freeholders who, through leasehold tenure, retained a long-term interest in the property, saw the garden squares as part of the marketing of the adjoining houses – most of which also have their own private gardens. Some squares have churches in parts of them – also part of the marketing of the houses.
So there you have an example from the days before modern town planning when some landlords zoned as well as developed. But it is the case that, with few exceptions, only developers aiming at the prosperous middle classes adopted this form of development. Developers catering for less well-off markets did not provide garden squares and it was only later that municipalities, starting, I think, with Liverpool at Victoria Park, got in on the act. The lower ends of the market could not support the cost of open space.
From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Metz
Sent: 31 July 2006 15:14
To: ' Dan Sullivan '; 'Wetzel Dave'
Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Less land for bus depots
Yes, Central Park and many other (manmade or not) public goods are paying for themselves - or could do so if LVT were collected on the surrounding land.
A park usually is not a result of LVT, however, but of planning, zoning or however it is named, in the first place. I am convinced that still every day developers try to buy or lease land in parks.
The real matter is whether LVT can not only replace property-related taxes, but also zoning. To make the point, it would be interesting and educational to have proof of parks developed by private companies and making a profit and generating a tax base. That could perhaps make zoning unnecessary.
From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Sullivan
Sent: zondag 30 juli 2006 20:10
To: Wetzel Dave
Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Less land for bus depots
On 30 Jul 2006 at 17:53, Wetzel Dave wrote:
> In the UKwe have trains which use diesel-electric but also just
> electric with overhead power supply lines via a pantograph and thirdlinking north and south. We had to have
> rail using a sliding shoe conduct the electricity to the motor. Our
> Thameslink service (which I was involved in re-opening in the 1980s),
> trains run through London
> special electric trains with pantographs and sliding shoes as north ofis 3rd rail.
> the Thames is overhead supply and south
>American Georgists suggest no such thing. One of our favorite
> As Georgists we are in danger of losing supporters for Location
> Benefit Levy if we suggest every bit of available town centre space
> will be maximised for buildings with no thought for the street scene,
> urban design or the city environment.
examples is Central Park in Manhattan . The land value premium that
attaches to land near Central Park is much greater than the land value
that would come from letting Central Park be developed. This
indicates that Central Park pays for itself and that no revenue is lost
by keeping it as an open park. It also suggests that other large parks
would command similar premiums.
Our objection is to exemptions is mostly for privately owned
facilities. If the public wants open space for its busses, and is willing
to forego direct land rent income that would come from putting that
land to a higher use, then it should by all means do so. Even if the bus
company paid the land rent, the taxpayers could reimburse that
amount for the advantages they appreciate.
On the other hand, American superhighways take up so much land
that there is a strong argument for charging them rent. Even though
the taxpayer would cover that rent as well, it is likely that people
would be aghast when they see just how much highways cost in terms
of lost land.
Again, land value tax does not dictate any particular use. It just
dictates that people take into account the value of the land used, and
that they do not make decisions with disregard for waste.
- ... Yet parks exist now in poor neighborhoods and would flourish in neighborhoods where people did not pay tax on their structures and found jobs helpingMessage 3 of 17 , Aug 1, 2006View SourceOn Aug 1, 2006, at 1:19 AM, Terence Bendixson wrote:
>Yet parks exist now in poor neighborhoods and would flourish in
> The lower ends of the market could not support the cost of open space.
neighborhoods where people did not pay tax on their structures and
found jobs helping develop formerly under-used sites held back by
SMITH, Jeffery J.
President, Forum on Geonomics
Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
- ... Then don t build one. There is nothing in LVT that makes you build something that makes no sense. Really, it s all a question of cost and benefits. HowMessage 4 of 17 , Aug 1, 2006View SourceOn 1 Aug 2006 at 8:13, Wetzel Dave wrote:
> Even with electric buses a dark and dreary underground bus stationThen don't build one. There is nothing in LVT that makes you build
> would not be an inviting prospect for bus passengers. Unlike an
> underground car park, bus passengers arrive early and have to wait
> for their bus to arrive.
something that makes no sense. Really, it's all a question of cost and
benefits. How much more do you suppose people would be willing to
pay to be able to wait for busses in an airy park? Let them pay that
premium, which will cover the land value tax, and let them have the
On the other hand, if the customers do not value the airy park, and it
is only valued by elitist planners who suppose themselves to know
what is good for the customers better than the customers do, then the
airy park will probably be a mistake. However, as I am neither a
customer nor a planner, it is not for me to say one way or the other.
> I'm suggesting in order to attract motorists from cars to bus weLVT would indeed encourage the best design standards, because it
> should be arguing that LVT would encourage the best possible design
> standards - better than anything the profit-driven capitalist system
> can provide.
makes the best design into the most profitable design. Although the
battle right now is between subsidized cars and subsidized busses, a
truly efficient system would have very little of either. People would
arrange their lives so they could do almost everything on foot, just as
they did for thousands of years before cars and busses came along.
> In London we are trying to improve our transport system, with over 6mFewer people in cars is a good thing, but more people in busses is not
> bus passengers a day, we have already achieved a 40% growth in bus
> patronage since the Mayor was first elected in 2000 and a 4% modal
> shift from car to public transport.
a good thing in itself. Busses also consume precious resources, and
busses also pollute. They merely consume and pollute less than cars,
which only makes them good by comparison, the way corn chips are
healthy in comparison to potato chips. It makes far more sense to tax
pollution and resource consumption, period, than to subsidize an
alternative that merely consumes and pollutes "less." Then people will
find ways to ride far less cars, and also ride less in busses. With fewer
people riding busses, we needn't worry that much about elaborate bus