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

Half a loaf is better than none

Expand Messages
  • Julien Gross
    As my achilles tendon did not produce a notable reaction apart from some tangent hair splitting debate, I will now head it what s coming : a half a loaf is
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      As my 'achilles tendon' did not produce a notable reaction apart from
      some tangent hair splitting debate, I will now head it what's
      coming : 'a half a loaf is better than none', in the controversy
      between LVT and Land Nationalisation in place of my suggested
      originally 'new order'.

      A one and a quarter century ago, Henry George has chosen the LVT as
      a more 'diplomatic' and smoother way to recover the rent
      misappropriated by the ruling elite, either through Heritage or
      speculation or even by profit from slave trading. The
      nationalisation of land advocated by the substantial majority of the
      Land reformers was rejected by him as entailing a new bureaucracy
      with all the hustle of leasing and compensation claims.

      Well, history alas, has proven Henry George wrong at least in modern
      history time scale, and not as a workable project but as a
      politically inept attempt to push a government - albeit fascistic,
      for implementation - still less in a liberal democratic government
      without Georgists in it, subjected to large land owners interests,
      further extended to Banks and all financial forces, without having
      all necessary means for the education of the public, traumatised by
      frequent taxations and more often to renege on it's promises.

      Whereas in the case of Naturalisation of the Land, it will be easily
      understood by the majority of citizens as a long awaited Act of
      retrieving the stolen land and as a positive change in increasing the
      State's revenues without imposing new charges on peoples earnings.
      It becomes a 'moral imperative' of social equality and as such could
      hardly being opposed otherwise than by selfish interest of the ruling
      elite.

      This Nationalisation will recover and use all mineral wealth held by
      the same elite - for the nation, and so introduce a new element into
      publics wealth and eliminate the emergence and proliferation of world
      monopolies in the vital field of natural resources of energy -
      holding the people of the world at ransom. Once established it will
      promote a most rational system of social participation. In fact it
      will open the road to LVT as self regulated economy. The threat of
      the spread of a new bureaucracy as warned by Henry George can be
      forstalled if recognised as a corollary to be faced in time by
      education and a new civic culture.

      To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge one day
      as a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the commanding
      heights of the economy of the country, is to submit to a cult of the
      Manna rather than to take half a loaf of bread, leading consequently
      to the final solution of the needs of a civilised humanity .

      This can be in a way illustrated by a composing scenario, where
      Georgists persecuted by a clerical dictatorship were sentenced to
      death by a squadron of rifle bearing military, just a moment before
      the order to shoot was given - the Georgists burst out shouting :
      "Long Live the Single Tax". Absurd as it may look, it still as the
      Italians say : "Se non e vero, e bon trovato".

      JULIEN
    • Mark Porthouse
      Hi Julien, My apologies for not replying to your achilles tendon post (which is still highlighted in my Land Café folder for attention!). Your comments
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Julien,

        My apologies for not replying to your 'achilles tendon' post (which is
        still highlighted in my Land Café folder for attention!).

        Your comments about Henry George's so far unsuccessful project and your
        hopes for "Naturalisation/Nationalisation of the Land" has prompted me
        (perhaps at a slight tangent! Hopefully not hair splitting!) to consider
        the fundamentals of change:

        My first premise: To have change, those who have power have to change.

        So either:
        1) You have to change which actual people have the power - perhaps by
        democratisation, education, terrorism, armed revolution, etc.
        OR
        2) You have to change the minds of those who have the power - perhaps by
        appealing to their sense of fairness or perhaps through their selfish urges.

        So we face exactly the same challenge as every other 'cause'.

        Personally I'm not going to condone terrorism or armed revolution and I
        also wouldn't expect to change the minds of those who currently have
        power. So I'm left attempting to redistribute power. My preference is
        grass roots education - education of the masses. This itself leads to
        more democratisation (which is still needed everywhere).

        Where do people learn? In the schools, colleges, newspapers, the pub,
        the church, the TV. Fortunately this is exactly what we are doing. We
        will never be perfect at it, but we are headed in the right direction.
        Will we have success? I don't know.

        We can make up grand plans, but ultimately any plans are mere proposals
        that we make to the power holders. The proposals and the education go
        hand in hand. Even a plethora of proposals are a good thing if they get
        the public's attention on the basic facts. Look at the global warming
        discussions - thousands of proposals (many crazy ones), but it is all
        getting attention on the basic points that those involved are trying to
        get across.

        There are many lessons we can take from the global warming discussion.
        For example: Will real change happen? I personally doubt it - the power
        seems to be in the hands of the people who want to keep the status quo.
        After all energy and power go together very well! :(

        Is the same true for land? Land and power...

        If there is one group of people we should target it is those who are
        trying to relieve poverty. In my experience most such people are unaware
        of the main root cause of poverty - they are already committed to the
        cause without actually realising what the cause actually is! I guess I'm
        talking about the type of charities that operate in third/developing
        world countries - these people have huge public profiles, they are very
        influential.

        Cheers,

        Mark

        Julien Gross said the following on 29/03/2007 16:47:
        > As my 'achilles tendon' did not produce a notable reaction apart from
        > some tangent hair splitting debate, I will now head it what's coming :
        > 'a half a loaf is better than none', in the controversy between LVT and
        > Land Nationalisation in place of my suggested originally 'new order'.
        >
        > A one and a quarter century ago, Henry George has chosen the LVT as a
        > more 'diplomatic' and smoother way to recover the rent misappropriated
        > by the ruling elite, either through Heritage or speculation or even by
        > profit from slave trading. The nationalisation of land advocated by the
        > substantial majority of the Land reformers was rejected by him as
        > entailing a new bureaucracy with all the hustle of leasing and
        > compensation claims.
        >
        > Well, history alas, has proven Henry George wrong at least in modern
        > history time scale, and not as a workable project but as a politically
        > inept attempt to push a government - albeit fascistic, for
        > implementation - still less in a liberal democratic government without
        > Georgists in it, subjected to large land owners interests, further
        > extended to Banks and all financial forces, without having all necessary
        > means for the education of the public, traumatised by frequent taxations
        > and more often to renege on it's promises.
        >
        > Whereas in the case of Naturalisation of the Land, it will be easily
        > understood by the majority of citizens as a long awaited Act of
        > retrieving the stolen land and as a positive change in increasing the
        > State's revenues without imposing new charges on peoples earnings. It
        > becomes a 'moral imperative' of social equality and as such could hardly
        > being opposed otherwise than by selfish interest of the ruling elite.
        >
        > This Nationalisation will recover and use all mineral wealth held by the
        > same elite - for the nation, and so introduce a new element into publics
        > wealth and eliminate the emergence and proliferation of world monopolies
        > in the vital field of natural resources of energy - holding the people
        > of the world at ransom. Once established it will promote a most
        > rational system of social participation. In fact it will open the road
        > to LVT as self regulated economy. The threat of the spread of a new
        > bureaucracy as warned by Henry George can be forstalled if recognised as
        > a corollary to be faced in time by education and a new civic culture.
        >
        > To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge one day as
        > a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the commanding heights
        > of the economy of the country, is to submit to a cult of the Manna
        > rather than to take half a loaf of bread, leading consequently to the
        > final solution of the needs of a civilised humanity .
        >
        > This can be in a way illustrated by a composing scenario, where
        > Georgists persecuted by a clerical dictatorship were sentenced to death
        > by a squadron of rifle bearing military, just a moment before the order
        > to shoot was given - the Georgists burst out shouting : "Long Live the
        > Single Tax". Absurd as it may look, it still as the Italians say : "Se
        > non e vero, e bon trovato".
        >
        > JULIEN
      • Julien Gross
        ... No--it did not happen. It was a joke I borrowed from a friend of Georgism, who wanted to illustrate the paradox between,on one hand, being jailed for
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          On 29 Mar 2007, at 18:19, Wetzel Dave wrote:

          > Julien,
          >
          > " This can be in a way illustrated by a composing scenario, where
          > Georgists persecuted by a clerical dictatorship were sentenced to
          > death by a squadron of rifle bearing military, just a moment before
          > the order to shoot was given - the Georgists burst out shouting :
          > "Long Live the Single Tax". "
          >
          > Did this really HAPPEN?
          >
          > When? Where?
          >
          > Dave
          >
          > Dave Wetzel,
          > Vice-Chair, TfL
          > 020 7126 4200
          > Hi Dave,
          No--it did not happen. It was a joke I borrowed from a friend of
          Georgism, who wanted to illustrate the paradox between,on one hand,
          being jailed for refusing to pay a tax, while on the other- being
          executed for not being taxed at all--as a baffled onlooker saw it,
          wandering
          at a congruity to die for a tax in times when people die for life
          and death causes. Sorry for making it look like a reported fact.
          > Julien
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Julien Gross [mailto:julien.gross@...]
          > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:47 PM
          > To: Mark Porthouse
          > Cc: Roy Langston; Dan Sullivan; Wetzel Dave; Harry Pollard; Paul Metz;
          > Land Cafe Group; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Eric Britton
          > Subject: Half a loaf is better than none
          >
          > As my 'achilles tendon' did not produce a notable reaction apart from
          > some tangent hair splitting debate, I will now head it what's
          > coming : 'a half a loaf is better than none', in the controversy
          > between LVT and Land Nationalisation in place of my suggested
          > originally 'new order'.
          >
          > A one and a quarter century ago, Henry George has chosen the LVT as
          > a more 'diplomatic' and smoother way to recover the rent
          > misappropriated by the ruling elite, either through Heritage or
          > speculation or even by profit from slave trading. The
          > nationalisation of land advocated by the substantial majority of the
          > Land reformers was rejected by him as entailing a new bureaucracy
          > with all the hustle of leasing and compensation claims.
          >
          > Well, history alas, has proven Henry George wrong at least in modern
          > history time scale, and not as a workable project but as a
          > politically inept attempt to push a government - albeit fascistic,
          > for implementation - still less in a liberal democratic government
          > without Georgists in it, subjected to large land owners interests,
          > further extended to Banks and all financial forces, without having
          > all necessary means for the education of the public, traumatised by
          > frequent taxations and more often to renege on it's promises.
          >
          > Whereas in the case of Naturalisation of the Land, it will be easily
          > understood by the majority of citizens as a long awaited Act of
          > retrieving the stolen land and as a positive change in increasing the
          > State's revenues without imposing new charges on peoples earnings.
          > It becomes a 'moral imperative' of social equality and as such could
          > hardly being opposed otherwise than by selfish interest of the ruling
          > elite.
          >
          > This Nationalisation will recover and use all mineral wealth held by
          > the same elite - for the nation, and so introduce a new element into
          > publics wealth and eliminate the emergence and proliferation of world
          > monopolies in the vital field of natural resources of energy -
          > holding the people of the world at ransom. Once established it will
          > promote a most rational system of social participation. In fact it
          > will open the road to LVT as self regulated economy. The threat of
          > the spread of a new bureaucracy as warned by Henry George can be
          > forstalled if recognised as a corollary to be faced in time by
          > education and a new civic culture.
          >
          > To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge one day
          > as a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the commanding
          > heights of the economy of the country, is to submit to a cult of the
          > Manna rather than to take half a loaf of bread, leading consequently
          > to the final solution of the needs of a civilised humanity .
          >
          > This can be in a way illustrated by a composing scenario, where
          > Georgists persecuted by a clerical dictatorship were sentenced to
          > death by a squadron of rifle bearing military, just a moment before
          > the order to shoot was given - the Georgists burst out shouting :
          > "Long Live the Single Tax". Absurd as it may look, it still as the
          > Italians say : "Se non e vero, e bon trovato".
          >
          > JULIEN
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > **********************************************************************
          > *************
          > 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.
          > **********************************************************************
          > *************
          >
        • Harry Pollard
          Julian, They might cry out Long live Liberty and Justice for all . Collecting Rent is the path to liberty and justice for all. It is vastly superior to land
          Message 4 of 28 , Apr 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            Julian,

             

            They might cry out "Long live Liberty and Justice for all".

             

            Collecting Rent is the path to liberty and justice for all. It is vastly superior to land nationalization.

             

            Will the 70% or so of homeowners support the confiscation that is nationalization? I doubt it.

             

            Will you compensate those nationalized. If you do, then we will be paying Rent anyway, but calling it interest.

             

            The trouble with Marxism is that it supports reform out of the barrel of a gun. Conflict is inevitable.

             

            George was able to get everything that was needed by reaching into the economy and making an adjustment. As, nowadays, our attention is mostly directed to the revenue that will be collected, rather than to the economic effects of LVT, we have forgotten the purpose of collecting Rent.

             

            I'm sure you have read my comment: “Better to collect Rent and throw it in the sea than not collect it at all.”

             

            The addresses the importance of collection rather than what is collected. If we were to collect 100% of the Rent, impersonal economic pressures would move us in the right direction.

             

            Much more preferable than the human pressures involved in land nationalization, with its inevitable mixture of personal preferences, under the counter pressures, incompetence, and outright venality.   

             

            Harry

            **********************************

            Henry George School of Social Science

            of Los Angeles.

            Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

            818 352-4141

            **********************************

             

            > -----Original Message-----

            > From: Julien Gross [mailto:julien.gross@...]

            > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:47 AM

            > To: Mark Porthouse

            > Cc: Roy Langston; Dan Sullivan; Dave Wetzel; Harry Pollard;

            > Paul Metz; Land Cafe Group; Julien Gross; fernando scornik;

            > Eric Britton

            > Subject: Half a loaf is better than none

            >

            > As my 'achilles tendon' did not produce a notable reaction apart

            > from

            > some tangent hair splitting debate, I will now head it what's

            > coming : 'a half a loaf is better than none',  in the controversy

            > between LVT and Land Nationalisation in place of my suggested

            > originally  'new order'.

            >

            > A  one and a quarter century ago, Henry George has chosen the

            > LVT as

            > a more 'diplomatic' and smoother way to recover the rent

            > misappropriated by the ruling elite, either through Heritage or

            > speculation or even by profit from slave trading.  The

            > nationalisation of land advocated by the substantial majority of

            > the

            > Land reformers was rejected by him as entailing a new

            > bureaucracy

            > with all the hustle of leasing and compensation claims.

            >

            > Well, history alas, has proven Henry George wrong at least in

            > modern

            > history time scale, and not as a workable project but as a

            > politically inept attempt to push a government  - albeit fascistic,

            > for implementation - still less in a liberal democratic government

            > without Georgists in it, subjected to large land owners interests,

            > further extended to Banks and all financial forces, without having

            > all necessary means for the education of the public, traumatised

            > by

            > frequent taxations and more often to renege on it's promises.

            >

            > Whereas in the case of Naturalisation of the Land, it will be easily

            > understood by the majority of citizens as a long awaited Act of

            > retrieving the stolen land and as a positive change in increasing

            > the

            > State's revenues without imposing new charges on peoples

            > earnings.

            > It becomes a 'moral imperative' of social equality and as such

            > could

            > hardly being opposed otherwise than by selfish interest of the

            > ruling

            > elite.

            >

            > This Nationalisation will recover and use all mineral wealth held

            > by

            > the same elite - for the nation, and so introduce a new element into

            > publics wealth and eliminate the emergence and proliferation of

            > world

            > monopolies in the vital field of natural resources of energy -

            > holding the people of the world at ransom.  Once established it

            > will

            > promote a most rational system of social participation.  In fact it

            > will open the road to LVT as self regulated economy.  The threat

            > of

            > the spread of a new bureaucracy as warned by Henry George can

            > be

            > forstalled if recognised as a corollary to be faced in time by

            > education and a new civic culture.

            >

            > To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge

            > one day

            > as a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the

            > commanding

            > heights of the economy of the country, is to submit to a cult of the

            > Manna rather than to take half a loaf of bread, leading

            > consequently

            > to the final solution of the needs of a civilised humanity .

            >

            > This can be in a way illustrated by a composing scenario, where

            > Georgists persecuted by a clerical dictatorship were sentenced to

            > death by a squadron of rifle bearing military, just a moment

            > before

            > the order to shoot was given - the Georgists burst out shouting :

            > "Long Live the Single Tax". Absurd as it may look, it still as the

            > Italians say : "Se non e vero, e bon trovato".

            >

            > JULIEN

             

          • Roy Langston
            Hello, All; ... That sounds rather optimistic to me, given the number of people who own land and consider their interests to be intimately dependent on their
            Message 5 of 28 , Apr 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello, All;

              Julien Gross <julien.gross@...> wrote:

              >Whereas in the case of Naturalisation of the Land, it will be easily  
              >understood by the majority of citizens as a long awaited Act of
              >retrieving the stolen land and as a positive change in increasing the
              >State's revenues without imposing new charges on peoples earnings.

              That sounds rather optimistic to me, given the number
              of people who own land and consider their interests to be
              intimately dependent on their landowning.

              >It becomes a 'moral imperative' of social equality and as such could
              >hardly being opposed otherwise than by selfish interest of the ruling
              >elite.

              My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who
              are far from being the ruling elite. Recall that systematic,
              institutionalized evil first compels its victims to adapt
              their behavior to it in self-defense, then gradually makes
              them dependent on it, and finally recruits them as its most
              ardent defenders. That is the situation now with landowning,
              as the majority of victims themselves own land, and
              conseqently believe the system to be in their own financial
              interests.

              >To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge one day
              >as a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the commanding
              >heights of the economy of the country,

              Do you mean the heights of government, or of wealth?

              > is to submit to a cult of the
              >Manna rather than to take half a loaf of bread, leading consequently
              >to the final solution of the needs of a civilised humanity .

              The words, "final solution" have an unfortunate association.

              If you think LVT has a poor record of implementation, it's
              nothing to the record of land nationalization!

              IMO what is needed is a way to implement land rent recovery
              gradually, showing early and substantial benefits to the
              great majority of people, without threatening the stability
              of the financial system or the welfare of politically
              inflammatory groups (the elderly widows). I will be posting
              my proposal for such a system within the next few days.

              Regards,

              -- Roy


              Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
            • Edward Dodson
              Julien Gross wrote: To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge one day as a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the commanding
              Message 6 of 28 , Apr 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Julien Gross wrote:

                To reject Land Nationalisation and wait for the LVT to emerge one day
                as a Deux ex Machina without the Georgist overtaking the commanding
                heights of the economy of the country, is to submit to a cult of the
                Manna rather than to take half a loaf of bread, leading consequently
                to the final solution of the needs of a civilised humanity .

                Ed Dodson here:
                I am reminded of Max Hirsch's turn-of-the-century book, Democracy vs.
                Socialism, and his warnings about turning over the assets of society to
                bureaucracies with neither effective responsibility for stewardship nor the
                pressures of the market to stimulate performance.

                This said, I am among (a relatively small group, I expect) who believe we
                are running out of time to achieve just societies by means of incremental
                reforms.

                At one level, many people give lip service to the idea that the earth is the
                birthright of all persons. Yet, the history of the Law of the Sea Treaty
                provides a clear indication of just how entrenched is the resistance to the
                moral imperative of sharing the earth's life-supporting resources.
              • Jeffery J. Smith
                ... Hear, hear! SMITH, Jeffery J. President, Forum on Geonomics jjs@geonomics.org; www.geonomics.org Share Earth s worth to prosper and conserve.
                Message 7 of 28 , Apr 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Roy Langston wrote:
                  >
                  > My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who
                  > are far from being the ruling elite.
                  > the majority of victims themselves own land, and
                  > conseqently believe the system to be in their own financial
                  > interests.

                  Hear, hear!

                  SMITH, Jeffery J.
                  President, Forum on Geonomics
                  jjs@...; www.geonomics.org
                  Share Earth's worth to prosper and conserve.
                • Paul Metz
                  On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Roy Langston wrote: My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who are far from being the ruling elite. the majority
                  Message 8 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Roy Langston wrote:

                    My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who
                    are far from being the ruling elite.
                    the majority of victims themselves own land, and

                    conseqently believe the system to be in their own financial
                    interests.

                    Hear, hear!

                    SMITH, Jeffery J.
                     
                    This support is too quick for me. Why are these victims victims ? Are they real victims, then 
                    we should know the quantitative studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any ?
                    In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post studies available.
                     
                    I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than uninformed, selfperceived victims,
                    educated by the uninformed mass press.  
                     
                    Paul Metz  
                  • Dan Sullivan
                    I have to agree with Paul on this one. My experience is that people are quick to project their own biases onto the public instead of studying history in search
                    Message 9 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I have to agree with Paul on this one. My experience is that people are
                      quick to project their own biases onto the public instead of studying
                      history in search of real answers.

                      In Pennsylvania, land value tax was only on the ballot as a referendum
                      question in one city, Allentown. It first appeared as a provision in a
                      home-rule charter proposal that was approved by the voters. Five
                      years later, an amendment to repeal the land value tax provision was
                      defeated.

                      It was written into the charter proposal by Pat Toomey, a conservative
                      libertarian tavern owner who went on to become a US Congressman.
                      In the repeal effort, land tax advocates were outspent by roughly
                      100:1, but the repeal failed anyhow, by a substantial margin. Josh
                      Vincent of the Henry George Foundation was heavily involved in
                      defeating the repeal, and can provide more detailed information about
                      how the campaign unfolded.

                      One thing I can tell you is that it was the *opponents* of land value
                      tax who charged that it would have people renting "their own" land.
                      This echoes what right-wing neolibertarian dogmatists say in
                      opposition to land value tax. Thus, while we Georgist ideologues,
                      talking among ourselves and stewing in our own juices, like to point
                      out that land tax is not really a tax, and that we should call it rent,
                      experience with the voting public has shown that homeowners in
                      particular recoil against that argument.

                      Effective LVT supporters do not rely on having the perfect "pick-up
                      line." Rather, we based our campaigns on research and hard work. In
                      Allentown, every home owner was told how land value tax would
                      affect him, and all the data on the performance of other land-taxing
                      cities in Pennsylvania was brought to the fore.

                      I should also point out, lest libertarian Georgists point to Toomey to
                      show that the libertarian approach is the most effective, that other
                      cities that adopted LVT had mostly liberal support, and that Toomey's
                      campaign was strongly supported by Ben Howells, a fairly liberal
                      Allentown city councilman. If anything, experience shows that
                      effective advocates avoid being drawn into one camp or another.

                      Unfortunately, we have way too many opinions in the Georgist
                      movement, and way too few documented historical facts. This year's
                      CGO conference in Scranton, PA will try to remedy that a bit, as the
                      sessions on Tuesday, July 24 will have an outside speaker on some of
                      George's most important allies in the labor movement and in the
                      liberal wing of the Catholic Church, Terence Powderly, Bishop
                      Gibbons and Father McGlynn. Those allies have been too long
                      ignored by those of us who have focused on theory and our own
                      suppositions. There will also be a dramatic presentation of Clarence
                      Darrow cross-examining a coal-mine owner, and a presentation by the
                      great grandson of a labor organizer who was hanged on charges of
                      being responsible for "Molly Maguire" violence. The organizer's
                      sentence was "posthumously commuted" in the 1970s based on
                      exculpatory evidence his great grandson had assembled.

                      -ds

                      On 3 Apr 2007 at 10:35, Paul Metz wrote:

                      > On Apr 1, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Roy Langston wrote:

                      > My experience is that LVT is bitterly opposed by people who
                      > are far from being the ruling elite.
                      > the majority of victims themselves own land, and
                      > conseqently believe the system to be in their own financial
                      > interests.
                      >
                      > Hear, hear!
                      >
                      > SMITH, Jeffery J.

                      > This support is too quick for me. Why are these victims
                      > victims ? Are they real victims, then we should know the
                      > quantitative studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any
                      > ? In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and
                      > ex-post studies available. I suppose that - as usual - most
                      > "victims" are not more than uninformed, selfperceived victims,
                      > educated by the uninformed mass press. Paul Metz
                    • Roy Langston
                      Hello, All; ... They are net losers under the system. ... That s a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello, All;

                        Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:
                         
                        >Why are these victims victims?
                         
                        They are net losers under the system.
                         
                        >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?
                         
                        That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?
                         
                        >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.
                         
                        I doubt it.
                         
                        >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.  

                        ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.
                         
                        -- Roy Langston


                        Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
                      • Wetzel Dave
                        The UK s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse s Botley area showed potential winners and losers. Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment

                          The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.

                           

                          Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?

                           

                          However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.

                           

                          1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                          2. The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                          3. It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                          i)                    the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                          ii)                  town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                          iii)                Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

                           

                          See:

                          http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                          Dave
                          President, the Labour Land Campaign
                          Tel: 020 7126 4200

                          www.Labour Land.org

                           

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                          To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                          Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                           

                          Hello, All;


                          Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

                           

                          >Why are these victims victims?

                           

                          They are net losers under the system.

                           

                          >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?

                           

                          That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?

                           

                          >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.

                           

                          I doubt it.

                           

                          >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.  


                          ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.

                           

                          -- Roy Langston

                           


                          Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.



                          ***********************************************************************************
                          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.
                          ***********************************************************************************
                        • Dan Sullivan
                          ... That s a quibble. Offer to support rental assessments as the second step in reform, and reassert that the land value tax is a dramatic improvement either
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 3 Apr 2007 at 18:31, Wetzel Dave wrote:

                            > The UK's Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse's Botley
                            > area showed potential winners and losers.
                            >
                            > Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who
                            > initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply
                            > a website reference?

                            > However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the
                            > valuation was applied: e.g.

                            > 1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values - not
                            > annual rental values.

                            That's a quibble. Offer to support rental assessments as the second
                            step in reform, and reassert that the land value tax is a dramatic
                            improvement either way.

                            > 2. The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.

                            Another quibble. If the shift is incremental, assessment improvements
                            can also be incremental.

                            > 3. It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same
                            > amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system
                            > (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                            > i) the tax base would be bigger if land
                            > (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had
                            > mostly developed sites.

                            The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                            revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                            increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
                            stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
                            had the whole thing blow up in their faces.

                            > ii) town centre sites would produce much
                            > more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                            Town centers are a good thing. Botley should use LVT to get itself a
                            town center.

                            > iii) Botley's agriculture land is greenbelt
                            > around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

                            Then let the owners donate it as parkland. Otherwise, the fact that it
                            commands a selling price belies the above assertion.

                            -ds

                            > See:
                            > http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Cam
                            > paign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf
                            > Dave
                            > President, the Labour Land Campaign
                            > Tel: 020 7126 4200
                            > www.Labour Land.org
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                            > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                            > To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                            > Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross';
                            > 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik';
                            > Wetzel Dave
                            > Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none
                            >
                            > Hello, All;
                            >
                            > Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > >Why are these victims victims?
                            >
                            > They are net losers under the system.
                            >
                            > >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies
                            > showing the winners & losers. Who has any?
                            >
                            > That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research
                            > showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be
                            > expected to experience from a switch to LVT?
                            >
                            > >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post
                            > >studies available.
                            >
                            > I doubt it.
                            >
                            > >I suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than
                            > >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass
                            > press.
                            >
                            > ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here. I was
                            > talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only
                            > about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to
                            > LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be
                            > unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.
                            >
                            > -- Roy Langston
                            >
                            > _____
                            >
                            > Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people.
                            > <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com> Go to Yahoo! Answers.
                            >
                            >
                            > ***********************************************************************************
                            > 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.
                            > ***********************************************************************************
                            >
                            >
                          • Harry Pollard
                            Dave, What does the residual method of valuation mean? Harry ********************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment

                              Dave,

                               

                              What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?

                               

                              Harry

                               

                              **********************************

                              Henry George School of Social Science

                              of Los Angeles.

                              Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                              818 352-4141

                              **********************************

                               

                              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                              To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                              Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                               

                              The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.

                               

                              Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?

                               

                              However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.

                               

                              1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                              2. The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                              3. It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                              i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                              ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                              iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

                               

                              See:

                              http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                              Dave
                              President, the Labour Land Campaign
                              Tel: 020 7126 4200

                              www.Labour Land.org

                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                              To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                              Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                               

                              Hello, All;


                              Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

                               

                              >Why are these victims victims?

                               

                              They are net losers under the system.

                               

                              >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?

                               

                              That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?

                               

                              >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post

                              >studies available.

                               

                              I doubt it.

                               

                              >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than

                              >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass
                              press.  


                              ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.

                               

                              -- Roy Langston

                               


                              Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.



                              ***********************************************************************************
                              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.
                              ***********************************************************************************

                            • Wetzel Dave
                              See http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf Or Ted Gwartney s website. Henry Abbott may also wish
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                See
                                http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                1. You imagine the finished building.
                                2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                6. You deduct the financing costs. 
                                7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                ie the land value.

                                Best Wishes,
                                Dave

                                Dave Wetzel
                                Vice-Chair TfL
                                Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                --------------------------
                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                                To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                                CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                                Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                Dave,



                                What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                                Harry



                                **********************************

                                Henry George School of Social Science

                                of Los Angeles.

                                Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                818 352-4141

                                **********************************



                                From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                                Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                                However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                                1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                See:

                                http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                Dave
                                President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                www.Labour Land.org



                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                Hello, All;


                                Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                >Why are these victims victims?



                                They are net losers under the system.



                                >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                I doubt it.



                                >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press. 


                                ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                -- Roy Langston

                                 

                                ________________________________

                                Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com



                                ***********************************************************************************
                                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.
                                ***********************************************************************************

                              • Wetzel Dave
                                1. Dan writes The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a revenue-neutral basis . I agree Dan. But Botley is not a local government
                                Message 15 of 28 , Apr 3, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                  1. Dan writes "The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                                  revenue-neutral basis".

                                  I agree Dan.

                                  But Botley is not a local government jurisdiction. It is part of the Vale of White Horse District Council and Oxforshire County Council.  The local taxes in Botley are paid for services from both these authorities. (in fact the business rates, called the National Non-Domestic Rates or NNDR  are collected by the government and redistributed to local councils across the country).

                                  So to compare an LVT regime with the current system, you would need to compare the totals collected nationally under both schemes (yes, on a revenue neutral basis Dan) and because LVT would include the city of London and other great metropolises, because LVT would collect from empty and underused sites ignored by the current system and because LVT would collect from farmland (including farm fields with planning permission to develop), excluded in the UK from paying anything since the 1920s, the share to be paid by Botley under LVT nationally would fall.
                                   Therefore in this study it was a mistake to assume the share to be paid by Botley under LVT would remain the same and led to the team suggesting an increase in business contribution to LVT in order to create more residential winners.  This has been used by The British Treasury as an argument against LVT.

                                  2. Dan writes "Town centers are a good thing. Botley should use LVT to get itself a town center."

                                  So LVT would give us a town centre on every street corner? - I don't think so Dan!

                                  It is this Georgist "logic" that has given Annual Land Value Tax a bad name.
                                  Where would you build the town centre? THE only available space in Botley would be on the farmers' fields - massively unpopular as these are currently protected from development by the Oxford green belt.
                                  Where would the shoppers come from? The local population could not sustain a town centre so it would need to attract shoppers from Oxford city centre. As there is little public transport they would use cars to get to Botley.
                                  And of course, Dan's reasoning would apply to the other 100 or so small communities around Oxford, each with their own competing town centre - I don't think so.


                                  3. I wrote:  "iii) Botley's agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value." 
                                  Dan responds "Then let the owners donate it as parkland. Otherwise, the fact that it commands a selling price belies the above assertion."

                                  So all farmland is to become parkland?
                                  Where would we get our food from? 

                                  The selling price comes from the value of the land in agricultural use.
                                  That does not bely the assertion  that it has no development value nor hope of develoment value.

                                  Best Wishes,
                                  Dave

                                  Dave Wetzel
                                  Vice-Chair TfL
                                  Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                  --------------------------
                                   

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Dan Sullivan <pimann@...>
                                  To: Wetzel Dave
                                  CC: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Tue Apr 03 21:55:57 2007
                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                  On 3 Apr 2007 at 18:31, Wetzel Dave wrote:

                                  > The UK's Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse's Botley
                                  > area showed potential winners and losers.

                                  > Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who
                                  > initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply
                                  > a website reference?

                                  > However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the
                                  > valuation was applied: e.g.

                                  > 1. The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values - not
                                  > annual rental values.

                                  That's a quibble. Offer to support rental assessments as the second
                                  step in reform, and reassert that the land value tax is a dramatic
                                  improvement either way.

                                  > 2.    The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.

                                  Another quibble. If the shift is incremental, assessment improvements
                                  can also be incremental.

                                  > 3.    It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same
                                  > amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system
                                  > (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                  > i)                    the tax base would be bigger if land
                                  > (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had
                                  > mostly developed sites.

                                  The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                                  revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                                  increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
                                  stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
                                  had the whole thing blow up in their faces.

                                  > ii)                  town centre sites would produce much
                                  > more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                  Town centers are a good thing. Botley should use LVT to get itself a
                                  town center.

                                  > iii)                Botley's agriculture land is greenbelt
                                  > around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

                                  Then let the owners donate it as parkland. Otherwise, the fact that it
                                  commands a selling price belies the above assertion.

                                  -ds

                                  > See:
                                  > http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Cam
                                  > paign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf
                                  > Dave
                                  > President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                  > Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                  > www.Labour Land.org

                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                  > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                  > To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                  > Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross';
                                  > 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik';
                                  > Wetzel Dave
                                  > Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                  > Hello, All;
                                  >
                                  > Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

                                  > >Why are these victims victims?

                                  > They are net losers under the system.

                                  > >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies
                                  > showing the winners & losers. Who has any?

                                  > That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research
                                  > showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be
                                  > expected to experience from a switch to LVT?

                                  > >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post
                                  > >studies available.

                                  > I doubt it.

                                  > >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than
                                  > >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass
                                  > press. 
                                  >
                                  > ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was
                                  > talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only
                                  > about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to
                                  > LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be
                                  > unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.

                                  > -- Roy Langston
                                  >  
                                  >   _____ 
                                  >
                                  > Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people.
                                  > <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com> Go to Yahoo! Answers.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ***********************************************************************************
                                  > 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.
                                  > ***********************************************************************************
                                  >
                                  >


                                • Paul Metz
                                  Dave, Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by trial without (too much) error ? Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Apr 4, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none
                                    Dave,
                                     
                                    Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                    Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.
                                     
                                    Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.
                                     
                                    Back to Roy's earlier remark:
                                     
                                    >Why are these victims victims?<  They are net losers under the system.
                                    Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.
                                     
                                    Paul Metz


                                    From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                    Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
                                    To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                    Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                    Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                    See
                                    http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                    Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                    Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                    However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                    1. You imagine the finished building.
                                    2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                    3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                    4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                    5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                    6. You deduct the financing costs. 
                                    7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                    8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                    ie the land value.

                                    Best Wishes,
                                    Dave

                                    Dave Wetzel
                                    Vice-Chair TfL
                                    Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                    --------------------------
                                     

                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                                    To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                                    CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                                    Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                    Dave,



                                    What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                                    Harry



                                    **********************************

                                    Henry George School of Social Science

                                    of Los Angeles.

                                    Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                    818 352-4141

                                    **********************************



                                    From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                    To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                    Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                    The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                                    Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                                    However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                                    1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                    2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                    3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                    i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                    ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                    iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                    See:

                                    http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                    Dave
                                    President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                    Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                    www.Labour Land.org



                                    -----Original Message-----
                                    From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                    To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                    Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                    Hello, All;


                                    Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                    >Why are these victims
                                    victims?



                                    They are net losers under the system.



                                    >Are they real victims, then we should know the
                                    quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                    That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                    >In Philadelphia
                                    and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                    I doubt it.



                                    >I  suppose that -
                                    as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press. 


                                    ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                    -- Roy Langston

                                     

                                    ________________________________

                                    Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com



                                    ***********************************************************************************
                                    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.
                                    ***********************************************************************************

                                  • Wetzel Dave
                                    I wrote The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers. Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Apr 4, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                      I wrote "The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.

                                      Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?"

                                      See Brian's reply below:

                                      Best Wishes,
                                      Dave

                                      Dave Wetzel
                                      Vice-Chair TfL
                                      Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                      --------------------------
                                       

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Brian Hodgson <brianhodgson@...>
                                      To: Wetzel Dave
                                      Sent: Wed Apr 04 12:29:30 2007
                                      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                      Dave,

                                      Yes.  The way I access it is via Google:--

                                      "Oxfordshire Land Value Tax Study",
                                      then click on "Download Area (Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats)" This leads to "Documents relating to the all-party Land Value Tax Study carried out in Oxfordshire in 2004"

                                      I have also done an analysis which shows that in Model 3b 71% of council taxpayers gain from a switch to LVT and only 29% lose.  Model 3b includes a Homestead Allowance of £838, recharged to commercial taxpayers only.

                                      NB  Most of those who lose are in the top council tax bands, and those who gain are mostly in the bottom bands, and so LVT gives you a much more progressive outcome than the pesent council tax system.

                                      Best wishes,

                                      Brian

                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              From: Wetzel Dave <mailto:Davewetzel@...
                                              To: Roy Langston <mailto:roy_langston1@...>  ; Paul Metz <mailto:metz@...>  ; Jeffery J. Smith <mailto:jjs@...
                                              Cc: Mark Porthouse <mailto:lists1@...>  ; Dan Sullivan <mailto:pimann@...>  ; Eric Britton <mailto:eric.britton@...>  ; Julien Gross <mailto:geo.democracy@...>  ; Land Cafe Group <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>  ; Harry Pollard <mailto:henrygeorgeschool@...>  ; Julien Gross <mailto:julien.gross@...>  ; fernando scornik <mailto:madrid@...>  ; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1 <mailto:brianhodgson@...
                                              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:31 PM
                                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none


                                              The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.

                                              

                                              Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?

                                              

                                              However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.

                                              

                                              1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                              2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                              3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                              i)                    the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                              ii)                  town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                              iii)                Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.

                                              

                                              See:

                                              http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                              Dave
                                              President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                              Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                              www.Labour Land.org

                                              

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                              Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                              To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                              Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                              

                                              Hello, All;

                                             
                                              Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:

                                              

                                              >Why are these victims victims?

                                              

                                              They are net losers under the system.

                                              

                                              >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?

                                              

                                              That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?

                                              

                                              >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.

                                              

                                              I doubt it.

                                              

                                              >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press. 

                                             
                                              ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.

                                              

                                              -- Roy Langston

                                               

                                              ________________________________

                                                      Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

                                             
                                             
                                              ***********************************************************************************
                                              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.
                                              ***********************************************************************************
                                             

                                              ________________________________

                                                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                                              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                                              Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/743 - Release Date: 02/04/2007 16:24
                                             

                                    • Wetzel Dave
                                      Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by trial without (too much) error ? Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Apr 4, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                        "Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                        Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off."

                                        Much easier than what Paul?

                                        This is exactly what I do advocate.

                                        Let's start with LVT as 10% of rental value and increase it to 40% over 3 Parliaments (approx 12 years).
                                         
                                        With tax cuts and a land dividend of £1000 per person,  low income people living on low value sites would be much better off.


                                        Best Wishes,
                                        Dave

                                        Dave Wetzel
                                        Vice-Chair TfL
                                        Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                        --------------------------
                                         

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                        To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                                        CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                        Sent: Wed Apr 04 08:41:36 2007
                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                        Dave,

                                        Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                        Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.

                                        Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.

                                        Back to Roy's earlier remark:

                                        >Why are these victims victims?<  They are net losers under the system.

                                        Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.

                                        Paul Metz

                                        ________________________________

                                        From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                        Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
                                        To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                        Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                        See
                                        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                        Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                        Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                        However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                        1. You imagine the finished building.
                                        2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                        3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                        4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                        5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                        6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                        7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                        8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                        ie the land value.

                                        Best Wishes,
                                        Dave

                                        Dave Wetzel
                                        Vice-Chair TfL
                                        Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                        --------------------------


                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                                        To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                                        CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                                        Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                        Dave,



                                        What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                                        Harry



                                        **********************************

                                        Henry George School of Social Science

                                        of Los Angeles.

                                        Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                        818 352-4141

                                        **********************************



                                        From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                        To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                        Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                        The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                                        Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                                        However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                                        1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                        2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                        3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                        i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                        ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                        iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                        See:

                                        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                        Dave
                                        President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                        Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                        www.Labour Land.org



                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                        To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                        Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                        Hello, All;


                                        Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                        >Why are these victims victims?



                                        They are net losers under the system.



                                        >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                        That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                        >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                        I doubt it.



                                        >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                                        ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                        -- Roy Langston



                                        ________________________________

                                        Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com>



                                        ***********************************************************************************
                                        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.
                                        ***********************************************************************************



                                      • Edward Dodson
                                        Dan Sullivan wrote: The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dan Sullivan wrote:

                                          The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                                          revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                                          increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
                                          stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
                                          had the whole thing blow up in their faces.

                                          Ed Dodson here:
                                          What if the consequences of a revenue neutral shift is a curtailment of
                                          public services? When in need of more revenue than is currently being
                                          raised, local government can try to obtain funds from a higher level of
                                          government, but this may not be easily achieved.

                                          If the need for more revenue is urgent, what are the best strategies to
                                          obtain widespread public support?
                                        • Edward Dodson
                                          Dave Wetzel wrote: However, as I understand it as a layperson: 1. You imagine the finished building. 2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value. 3.
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dave Wetzel wrote:

                                            However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                            1. You imagine the finished building.
                                            2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                            3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                            4. You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg
                                            access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                            5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                            6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                            7. You deduct your desired profit.
                                            8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                            ie the land value.

                                            Ed Dodson here:
                                            This level of analysis may be what is used by housing developers. For
                                            existing improved properties, the beginning point, I suggest, is to
                                            determine replacement cost, then reduce the improvement value by a
                                            calculation of actual depreciation of the structure and its systems.

                                            Similar issues are associated with the replacement costs of depreciated
                                            public infrastructure.

                                            The difference between the above net values and the selling price that can
                                            be obtained for the property (land+improvements) is what I would label as
                                            the residual capitalized land value.

                                            From the perspective of the developer, the decision to purchase the location
                                            and construct a building will depend on whether the landowner's asking price
                                            is too high for the developer to recoup all anticipated costs (costs that
                                            include the developer's own fee). I see this as distinct from coming to land
                                            value using the residual approach.
                                          • Dan Sullivan
                                            ... Re-read sentence two above. ... Nor should it be in most cases. ... Explain the consequences of service cuts generally, and the consequences of service
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On 5 Apr 2007 at 12:49, Edward Dodson wrote:

                                              > Dan Sullivan wrote:
                                              >
                                              > The only intelligent way to compare one tax with another is on a
                                              > revenue-neutral basis. If an increase is necessary, consider one tax
                                              > increase with another revenue-equivalent increase. We have horror
                                              > stories about politicians who tried to mix a shift with an increase and
                                              > had the whole thing blow up in their faces.
                                              >
                                              > Ed Dodson here:
                                              > What if the consequences of a revenue neutral shift is a curtailment of
                                              > public services?

                                              Re-read sentence two above.

                                              > When in need of more revenue than is currently being raised,
                                              > local government can try to obtain funds from a higher level
                                              > of government, but this may not be easily achieved.

                                              Nor should it be in most cases.

                                              > If the need for more revenue is urgent, what are the best
                                              > strategies to obtain widespread public support?

                                              Explain the consequences of service cuts generally, and the
                                              consequences of service cuts to land values particularly. Then let
                                              someone else propose some other tax. The anti-tax people will
                                              develop a big head of steam against that tax. Meanwhile, you are
                                              waiting in the wings with data on how every complaint they make
                                              about the other tax is either not true when using land value tax or is
                                              less of a problem.

                                              -ds
                                            • Dan Sullivan
                                              This is only one of many approaches to assessing, and it is not the favored method when other methods are available. First and foremost is comparable sales.
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                This is only one of many approaches to assessing, and it is not the
                                                favored method when other methods are available. First and foremost
                                                is comparable sales. Only when there are no comparable sales does
                                                one have to resort to measures that involve speculation.

                                                Also, replacement cost minus depreciation is only appropriate when
                                                the current use is the full market use, or what assessors call the
                                                "highest best use." If it is not, then the building is worth far less than
                                                the replacement cost minus depreciation, and the land is worth more.

                                                -ds

                                                On 5 Apr 2007 at 13:16, Edward Dodson wrote:

                                                > Dave Wetzel wrote:
                                                >
                                                > However, as I understand it as a layperson:
                                                >
                                                > 1. You imagine the finished building.
                                                > 2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                                > 3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                                > 4. You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg
                                                > access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                                > 5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                                > 6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                                > 7. You deduct your desired profit.
                                                > 8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                                > ie the land value.
                                                >
                                                > Ed Dodson here:
                                                > This level of analysis may be what is used by housing developers. For
                                                > existing improved properties, the beginning point, I suggest, is to
                                                > determine replacement cost, then reduce the improvement value by a
                                                > calculation of actual depreciation of the structure and its systems.
                                                >
                                                > Similar issues are associated with the replacement costs of depreciated
                                                > public infrastructure.
                                                >
                                                > The difference between the above net values and the selling price that can
                                                > be obtained for the property (land+improvements) is what I would label as
                                                > the residual capitalized land value.
                                                >
                                                > From the perspective of the developer, the decision to purchase the location
                                                > and construct a building will depend on whether the landowner's asking price
                                                > is too high for the developer to recoup all anticipated costs (costs that
                                                > include the developer's own fee). I see this as distinct from coming to land
                                                > value using the residual approach.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > 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?)
                                                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                              • Harry Pollard
                                                Dave, The reason I asked about the “residual” was to confirm my worst fears. Well, perhaps not quite so dire a reaction – but close. Land residual
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment

                                                  Dave,

                                                   

                                                  The reason I asked about the “residual” was to confirm my worst fears.

                                                   

                                                  Well, perhaps not quite so dire a reaction – but close.

                                                   

                                                  Land residual appraisal is about the worst way we can find to determine the value of land.

                                                   

                                                  Building residual is OK.

                                                   

                                                  If an appraiser is trying to determine the value of a site under an improvement, he will certainly use the method you detailed to find it.

                                                   

                                                  In fact, a good appraiser will use every piece of data he can search out to come up with a value, and not the least he can contribute is his experience.

                                                   

                                                  I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same – hence the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.

                                                   

                                                  If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals – even though the land-value of every site would be the same.   

                                                   

                                                  We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.

                                                   

                                                  Harry

                                                   

                                                  **********************************

                                                  Henry George School of Social Science

                                                  of Los Angeles.

                                                  Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                  818 352-4141

                                                  **********************************

                                                   

                                                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:39 PM
                                                  To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                                  Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                   

                                                  See
                                                  http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20 pdf Henry%20Law.

                                                  Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                                  Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                                  However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                                  1. You imagine the finished building.
                                                  2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                                  3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                                  4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                                  5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                                  6. You deduct the financing costs. 
                                                  7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                                  8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                                  ie the land value.

                                                  Best Wishes,
                                                  Dave

                                                  Dave Wetzel
                                                  Vice-Chair TfL
                                                  Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                                  --------------------------
                                                   

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                                                  To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                                                  CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                                                  Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                  Dave,



                                                  What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                                                  Harry



                                                  **********************************

                                                  Henry George School of Social Science

                                                  of Los Angeles.

                                                  Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                  818 352-4141

                                                  **********************************



                                                  From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                                  To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                                  Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                  The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                                                  Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                                                  However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                                                  1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                                  2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                                  3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                                  i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                                  ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                                  iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                                  See:

                                                  http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                                  Dave
                                                  President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                                  Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                                  www.Labour Land.org



                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                                  Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                                  To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                                  Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                  Hello, All;


                                                  Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                                  >Why are these victims victims?



                                                  They are net losers under the system.



                                                  >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing
                                                  the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                                  That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                                  >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                                  I doubt it.



                                                  >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more
                                                  than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press. 


                                                  ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                                  -- Roy Langston

                                                   

                                                  ________________________________

                                                  Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com



                                                  ***********************************************************************************
                                                  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.
                                                  ***********************************************************************************

                                                • Wetzel Dave
                                                  I agree with you Harry. I was describing the method used in Oxford. I do hope you have discussed your ideas with Ted G. Matt Harris and Henry Abbott. Best
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 5, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                    I agree with you Harry.
                                                    I was describing the method used in Oxford.
                                                    I do hope you have discussed your ideas with Ted G. Matt Harris and Henry Abbott.
                                                    Best Wishes,
                                                    Dave

                                                    Dave Wetzel
                                                    Vice-Chair TfL
                                                    Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                                    --------------------------
                                                     

                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                                                    To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; metz@... <metz@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                                                    CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                                    Sent: Thu Apr 05 21:26:04 2007
                                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                    Dave,



                                                    The reason I asked about the “residual” was to confirm my worst fears.



                                                    Well, perhaps not quite so dire a reaction – but close.



                                                    Land residual appraisal is about the worst way we can find to determine the value of land.



                                                    Building residual is OK.



                                                    If an appraiser is trying to determine the value of a site under an improvement, he will certainly use the method you detailed to find it.



                                                    In fact, a good appraiser will use every piece of data he can search out to come up with a value, and not the least he can contribute is his experience.



                                                    I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same – hence the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.



                                                    If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals – even though the land-value of every site would be the same.  



                                                    We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.



                                                    Harry



                                                    **********************************

                                                    Henry George School of Social Science

                                                    of Los Angeles.

                                                    Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                    818 352-4141

                                                    **********************************



                                                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                                                    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:39 PM
                                                    To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                                    Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                                    Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                    See
                                                    http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20 pdf Henry%20Law. <http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                                    Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                                    Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                                    However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                                    1. You imagine the finished building.
                                                    2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                                    3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                                    4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                                    5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                                    6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                                    7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                                    8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                                    ie the land value.

                                                    Best Wishes,
                                                    Dave

                                                    Dave Wetzel
                                                    Vice-Chair TfL
                                                    Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                                    --------------------------


                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Harry Pollard <henrygeorgeschool@...>
                                                    To: Wetzel Dave; 'Roy Langston' <roy_langston1@...>; 'Paul Metz' <metz@...>; 'Jeffery J. Smith' <jjs@...>
                                                    CC: 'Mark Porthouse' <lists1@...>; 'Dan Sullivan' <pimann@...>; 'Eric Britton' <eric.britton@...>; 'Julien Gross' <geo.democracy@...>; 'Land Cafe Group' <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; 'Harry Pollard' <henrygeorgeschool@...>; 'Julien Gross' <julien.gross@...>; 'fernando scornik' <madrid@...>; 'Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1' <brianhodgson@...>
                                                    Sent: Wed Apr 04 02:16:20 2007
                                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                    Dave,



                                                    What does the “residual method of valuation” mean?



                                                    Harry



                                                    **********************************

                                                    Henry George School of Social Science

                                                    of Los Angeles.

                                                    Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                    818 352-4141

                                                    **********************************



                                                    From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                                    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                                    To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                                    Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                    The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.



                                                    Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?



                                                    However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.



                                                    1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                                    2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                                    3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                                    i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                                    ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                                    iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                                    See:

                                                    http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                                    Dave
                                                    President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                                    Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                                    www.Labour Land.org



                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                                    Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                                    To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                                    Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                    Hello, All;


                                                    Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                                    >Why are these victims victims?



                                                    They are net losers under the system.



                                                    >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                                    That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                                    >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                                    I doubt it.



                                                    >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                                                    ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                                    -- Roy Langston



                                                    ________________________________

                                                    Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers. <http://ca.answers.yahoo.com>



                                                    ***********************************************************************************
                                                    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.
                                                    ***********************************************************************************



                                                  • walterhorn
                                                    ... city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same †hence the
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 7, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard"
                                                      <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a
                                                      city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On
                                                      a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same â€" hence
                                                      the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different
                                                      improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of
                                                      improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals â€" even
                                                      though the land-value of every site would be the same.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find
                                                      >relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But
                                                      >that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.

                                                      Harry, let me ask what is probably a fairly naive question here.
                                                      One of the attractions of LVT (or whatever you'd like to call it)
                                                      for me is that landowners would no longer automatically receive
                                                      windfalls as a result of the improvements made by their neighbors
                                                      (or by the state, county, etc. in their neighborhoods). So, suppose
                                                      my property values have been rapidly increasing as a result of
                                                      everybody but me on my block expanding their houses
                                                      into "McMansions." If, as you recommend, there is simply a "pre-all-
                                                      improvements" site-value map that one should consult to obtain the
                                                      appropriate tax/rent that I should be required to pay, how will the
                                                      windfall that has inured to me as a result of my neighbors'
                                                      expenditures be recovered by the community (as I believe it should)?

                                                      Thanks. I hope this isn't something you've had to patiently explain
                                                      fifty times here already!

                                                      W
                                                    • Paul Metz
                                                      Dave Wetzel wrote: Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by trial without (too much) error ? Start with a moderate rate, avoid
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Apr 7, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none
                                                        Dave Wetzel  wrote:  

                                                        "Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                                        Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off."

                                                        Much easier than what Paul?

                                                        This is exactly what I do advocate.

                                                        Let's start with LVT as 10% of rental value and increase it to 40% over 3 Parliaments (approx 12 years).
                                                         
                                                        With tax cuts and a land dividend of £1000 per person,  low income people living on low value sites would be much better off. 

                                                         ---------------------------------------- 
                                                        Paul Metz:

                                                        Much easier than the residual method you were proposing - at least I had the impression.
                                                        But apparently not. Then we agree.

                                                        --------------------------
                                                         

                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                                        To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                                                        CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                                        Sent: Wed Apr 04 08:41:36 2007
                                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                        Dave,

                                                        Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                                        Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.

                                                        Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.

                                                        Back to Roy's earlier remark:

                                                        >Why are these victims
                                                        victims?<  They are net losers under the system.

                                                        Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.

                                                        Paul Metz

                                                        ________________________________

                                                        From: Wetzel Dave [
                                                        mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                                        Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
                                                        To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                                        Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                        See
                                                        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                                        Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                                        Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                                        However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                                        1. You imagine the finished building.
                                                        2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                                        3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                                        4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                                        5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                                        6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                                        7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                                        8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                                        ie the land value.

                                                        Best Wishes,
                                                        Dave

                                                        Dave Wetzel
                                                        Vice-Chair TfL
                                                        Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                                        --------------------------

                                                        From: Wetzel Dave [
                                                        mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                                        To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                                        Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none


                                                        The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.


                                                        Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?


                                                        However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.


                                                        1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                                        2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                                        3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                                        i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                                        ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                                        iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                                        See:

                                                        http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf

                                                        Dave
                                                        President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                                        Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                                        www.Labour Land.org



                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: Roy Langston [
                                                        mailto:roy_langston1@...]
                                                        Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                                        To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                                        Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                        Hello, All;


                                                        Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                                        >Why are these victims victims?



                                                        They are net losers under the system.



                                                        >Are they real victims, then we
                                                        should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                                        That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                                        >In Philadelphia
                                                        and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                                        I doubt it.



                                                        >I  suppose that -
                                                        as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                                                        ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                                        -- Roy Langston


                                                        ________________________________





                                                      • Wetzel Dave
                                                        Paul, 1. Let s not confuse methods of valuation with the tax rate (or poundage ) we wish to introduce. 2. I didn t propose the residual method of valuation. I
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Apr 8, 2007
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                          Paul,
                                                          1. Let's not confuse methods of valuation with the tax rate (or poundage ) we wish to introduce.

                                                          2. I didn't propose the residual method of valuation. I had said it was a possible problem with the Oxford studies'  method of valuation.

                                                          3. I was then asked to describe it.
                                                          I preceded my explanation with the disclaimer that there were others better qualified than I to describe a method of valuation.

                                                          Best Wishes,
                                                          Dave

                                                          Dave Wetzel
                                                          Vice-Chair TfL
                                                          Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                                          --------------------------
                                                           

                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                                          To: Wetzel Dave; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>
                                                          CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                                          Sent: Sat Apr 07 21:34:58 2007
                                                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                          Dave Wetzel  wrote: 

                                                          "Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                                          Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off."

                                                          Much easier than what Paul?

                                                          This is exactly what I do advocate.

                                                          Let's start with LVT as 10% of rental value and increase it to 40% over 3 Parliaments (approx 12 years).

                                                          With tax cuts and a land dividend of £1000 per person,  low income people living on low value sites would be much better off.

                                                           ----------------------------------------
                                                          Paul Metz:

                                                          Much easier than the residual method you were proposing - at least I had the impression.
                                                          But apparently not. Then we agree.

                                                          --------------------------


                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                                          To: Wetzel Dave; henrygeorgeschool@... <henrygeorgeschool@...>; roy_langston1@... <roy_langston1@...>; jjs@... <jjs@...>
                                                          CC: lists1@... <lists1@...>; pimann@... <pimann@...>; eric.britton@... <eric.britton@...>; geo.democracy@... <geo.democracy@...>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; Julien.gross@... <Julien.gross@...>; madrid@... <madrid@...>; brianhodgson@... <brianhodgson@...>; hewabbott@... <hewabbott@...>; Tgwartney@... <Tgwartney@...>
                                                          Sent: Wed Apr 04 08:41:36 2007
                                                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                          Dave,

                                                          Is it not much easier to follow the very normal path of taxation by "trial without (too much) error" ?
                                                          Start with a moderate rate, avoid pain by revenue neutrality keeping the expected undeserved losers (usually low-income people) in mind and increase the rate during a number of years in small, clearly announced steps. Feedback will some time start to signal a positive response and policy effect and later also a flattening-off.

                                                          Experience with ecological tax design has shown that ex-ante valuation is unneccessary, mostly academic and a loss of time.

                                                          Back to Roy's earlier remark:

                                                          >Why are these victims victims?<  They are net losers under the system.

                                                          Which system do you mean, the current without or the new with LVT ? I had the new situation in mind and later read that you then agree with my comment.

                                                          Paul Metz

                                                          ________________________________

                                                          From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                                                          Sent: woensdag 4 april 2007 7:39
                                                          To: henrygeorgeschool@...; roy_langston1@...; metz@...; jjs@...
                                                          Cc: lists1@...; pimann@...; eric.britton@...; geo.democracy@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; Julien.gross@...; madrid@...; brianhodgson@...; hewabbott@...; Tgwartney@...
                                                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                          See
                                                          http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf <http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf>

                                                          Or Ted Gwartney's website.
                                                          Henry Abbott may also wish to comment.

                                                          However, as I understand it as a layperson:

                                                          1. You imagine the finished building.
                                                          2. From relevant local sales data you assess the value.
                                                          3. You deduct the construction costs of the building.
                                                          4.  You deduct the construction costs of the infrastructure on the site (eg access road, drains, linking to cable or energy supplies etc.).
                                                          5 . You deduct the costs for getting permission to build.
                                                          6. You deduct the financing costs.
                                                          7. You deduct your desired profit.

                                                          8 . The "residual" is what you can afford to pay the landowner.
                                                          ie the land value.

                                                          Best Wishes,
                                                          Dave

                                                          Dave Wetzel
                                                          Vice-Chair TfL
                                                          Tel: 020 7126 4200
                                                          --------------------------

                                                          From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                                                          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:31 AM
                                                          To: Roy Langston; Paul Metz; Jeffery J. Smith
                                                          Cc: Mark Porthouse; Dan Sullivan; Eric Britton; Julien Gross; Land Cafe Group; Harry Pollard; Julien Gross; fernando scornik; Brian Hodgson (Chair LLC) bh1
                                                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none


                                                          The UK’s Oxford land value study in the Vale of White Horse’s Botley area showed potential winners and losers.


                                                          Perhaps Brian Hodgson the Chair of the Labour Land Campaign, who initiated the study as a Councillor on Oxford County Council can supply a website reference?


                                                          However, there are criticisms of the methodology and how the valuation was applied: e.g.


                                                          1.      The valuation was based on capital (freehold) values – not annual rental values.
                                                          2.      The residual method of valuation was not fully applied.
                                                          3.      It was assumed that this area would have to collect the same amount of tax in total as under the existing local Government tax system (Council Tax and Business Rates [NNDR]) even though:

                                                          i)           the tax base would be bigger if land (all site values) is taxed not improvements. But Botley had mostly developed sites.

                                                          ii)          town centre sites would produce much more LVT revenue. Botley has no town centres.

                                                          iii)        Botley’s agriculture land is greenbelt around Oxford and has no development/hope value.



                                                          See:

                                                          http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf <http://www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk/submissions/Land%20Value%20Taxation%20Campaign%20-%20Henry%20Law.pdf>

                                                          Dave
                                                          President, the Labour Land Campaign
                                                          Tel: 020 7126 4200

                                                          www.Labour Land.org



                                                          -----Original Message-----
                                                          From: Roy Langston [mailto:roy_langston1@... <mailto:roy_langston1@...> ]
                                                          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:47 PM
                                                          To: Paul Metz; 'Jeffery J. Smith'
                                                          Cc: 'Mark Porthouse'; 'Dan Sullivan'; 'Eric Britton'; 'Julien Gross'; 'Land Cafe Group'; 'Harry Pollard'; 'Julien Gross'; 'fernando scornik'; Wetzel Dave
                                                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none



                                                          Hello, All;


                                                          Paul Metz <metz@...> wrote:



                                                          >Why are these victims victims?



                                                          They are net losers under the system.



                                                          >Are they real victims, then we should know the quantitative >studies showing the winners & losers. Who has any?



                                                          That's a good question. Anyone here know of any credible research showing the net gains and losses various sorts of people would be expected to experience from a switch to LVT?



                                                          >In Philadelphia and Harrisburg there should be ex-ante and ex-post >studies available.



                                                          I doubt it.



                                                          >I  suppose that - as usual - most "victims" are not more than >uninformed, selfperceived victims, educated by the uninformed mass press.


                                                          ?? I'm not sure we're on the same page of the hymn book, here.  I was talking about the victims of the current system, not of LVT. IMO only about the top 1%-2% of landowners would be net losers by a switch to LVT. Our problem is that almost all of the bottom 90%, who would be unambiguous winners, are convinced they would be losers.



                                                          -- Roy Langston


                                                          ________________________________








                                                          ***********************************************************************************
                                                          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.
                                                          ***********************************************************************************
                                                        • Harry Pollard
                                                          Walter, When I became a Georgist almost 60 years ago, I was most attracted to the idea of a system that rewarded the good neighbor and penalized the bad
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Apr 8, 2007
                                                          • 0 Attachment

                                                            Walter,

                                                             

                                                            When I became a Georgist almost 60 years ago, I was most attracted to the idea of a system that rewarded the good neighbor and penalized the bad neighbor.

                                                             

                                                            However, this is not the way land valuation works.  As I earlier mentioned, street valuation is likely to value all sites in a street the same.  If we began separately to alter land values based on subjective valuation of the improvements, we would get into a can of worms.

                                                             

                                                            As we know, the most important thing about publishing land value maps is that it makes the whole process easier for the average citizen to understand.  Subjective alterations to basic site values based on the beauty or ugliness of improvements will not help understanding.

                                                             

                                                            So it has to be dealt with in a different way.  An old friend of mine is a pack rat.  Over the years, his house filled with junk -- beg pardon -- important things that could not be thrown away.  The important things spilled over into a front and back yards.

                                                             

                                                            Neighbors complained, inspectors visited and laid down the law.

                                                             

                                                            Friends, of whom he has many, are helping to get rid of the trash -- I mean, important things.  Also, they have been repairing the heating and hot water supply.

                                                             

                                                            We hope that when the inspectors return they will not red tag the house, which would mean that he was no longer allowed to live in it until it was in better condition.

                                                             

                                                            The house is in a good neighborhood and, interestingly, a non-Georgist acquaintance said that they could pull down the house and sell the site for half million dollars.

                                                             

                                                            So that's how it's dealt with in Los Angeles.

                                                             

                                                            I'm not particularly happy about government coming into my living room – though where there is a public health concern, it seems reasonable.

                                                             

                                                             I recall a case many years ago in England something that happened in a street of row housing.  These are attached homes without front gardens, with their front doors opening to the sidewalk.  If you stand on the sidewalk and look down the street, you see practically identical doorways stretching into the distance.

                                                             

                                                            It was council housing, provided at low rents to poorer people.

                                                             

                                                            In this case, a lady showed a little individuality and painted her front doorstep red.  The council was thoroughly annoyed and forced her to remove the red paint.

                                                             

                                                            Oh, well.

                                                             

                                                            Harry

                                                             

                                                            ********************************

                                                            Henry George School of Social Science

                                                            of Los Angeles.

                                                            Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042

                                                            818 352-4141

                                                            **********************************

                                                             

                                                            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of walterhorn
                                                            Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 7:33 AM
                                                            To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Half a loaf is better than none

                                                             

                                                            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Pollard"
                                                            <henrygeorgeschool@...> wrote:

                                                            >
                                                            > I’ve mentioned the advantages of producing a land-value map of a
                                                            city. Foremost is the relationship of site-values to each other. On
                                                            a given street, every site-value is likely to be the same â€" hence
                                                            the attractiveness of ‘street valuation’.
                                                            >
                                                            > If, on a given street, there are (say) 10 completely different
                                                            improvements, you could go through your multiple calculations of
                                                            improvements and likely get 10 different land residuals â€" even
                                                            though the land-value of every site would be the same.

                                                            > We should remember that a Rent collecting community would find

                                                            >relatively easy the valuation and publication of land values. But
                                                            >that won’t happen if we use land residual valuation.

                                                            Harry, let me ask what is probably a fairly naive question here.
                                                            One of the attractions of LVT (or whatever you'd like to call it)
                                                            for me is that landowners would no longer automatically receive
                                                            windfalls as a result of the improvements made by their neighbors
                                                            (or by the state, county, etc. in their neighborhoods). So, suppose
                                                            my property values have been rapidly increasing as a result of
                                                            everybody but me on my block expanding their houses
                                                            into "McMansions." If, as you recommend, there is simply a "pre-all-
                                                            improvements" site-value map that one should consult to obtain the
                                                            appropriate tax/rent that I should be required to pay, how will the
                                                            windfall that has inured to me as a result of my neighbors'
                                                            expenditures be recovered by the community (as I believe it should)?

                                                            Thanks. I hope this isn't something you've had to patiently explain
                                                            fifty times here already!

                                                            W

                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.