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

Re: Housing Green Paper

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made. 1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 23, 2007
      Re: Housing Green Paper

      If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

      1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
      Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
      Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

      2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
       If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens? 

      3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

      A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

      Please contact me if you want more information.
      Best Wishes,
      Dave

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

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

      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, Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1. If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 29, 2007
        Dave,
         
        Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.
         
        If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.
         
        Cheers
        Paul Metz


        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
        Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
        To: a@abc..Co.UK
        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

        If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

        1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
        Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
        Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

        2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
         If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens? 

        3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

        A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

        Please contact me if you want more information.
        Best Wishes,
        Dave

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

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

        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@tfl. gov.uk.

         

        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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

      • Wetzel Dave
        Paul, Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build. But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 29, 2007
          Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

          Paul,
          Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

          But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

          A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
          Best Wishes,
          Dave

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

          -----Original Message-----
          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
          To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

          Dave,

          Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

          If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

          Cheers
          Paul Metz
          www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com

          ________________________________

          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
          Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
          To: a@abc..Co.UK
          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



          If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

          1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
          Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
          Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

          2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
           If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

          3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

          A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

          Please contact me if you want more information.
          Best Wishes,
          Dave

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

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

          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.

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


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

          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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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

           

        • Paul Metz
          Dave, If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses. Why is
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
            Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper
            Dave,
             
            If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
            Why is it not done then ?
             
            I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
            Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.
             
            However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.
             
            The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.
             
            Paul Metz


            From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
            Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
            To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

            Paul,
            Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

            But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

            A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
            Best Wishes,
            Dave

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

            -----Original Message-----
            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
            To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

            Dave,

            Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

            If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

            Cheers
            Paul Metz
            www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com

            ________________________________

            From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
            Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
            To: a@abc..Co.UK
            Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



            If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

            1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
            Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
            Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

            2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
             If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

            3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

            A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

            Please contact me if you want more information.
            Best Wishes,
            Dave

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

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

            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
            Your wrong Paul. If building costs halved, all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land. If building costs
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
              Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

              Your wrong Paul.

              If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.

              If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down.

              If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

              Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.
              Land is Not a cost of production.

              Best Wishes,
              Dave

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

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
              To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

              Dave,

              If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
              Why is it not done then ?

              I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
              Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

              However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

              The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

              Paul Metz

              ________________________________

              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
              Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
              To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



              Paul,
              Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

              But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

              A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
              Best Wishes,
              Dave

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


              -----Original Message-----
              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
              To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

              Dave,

              Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

              If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

              Cheers
              Paul Metz
              www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com>

              ________________________________

              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
              Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
              To: a@abc..Co.UK
              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



              If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

              1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
              Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
              Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

              2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
               If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

              3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

              A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

              Please contact me if you want more information.
              Best Wishes,
              Dave

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


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

              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.

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



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

              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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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

               

            • Paul Metz
              I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after Paul _____ From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk] Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23 To:
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper
                I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after >
                 
                Paul


                From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                Your wrong Paul.

                If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land. 

                If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down.  

                > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is also the project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down. 

                > This would imply that a (climate) policy to improve the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met. 

                > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                Land is Not a cost of production. 

                > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost.  

                Paul  

                PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                Best Wishes,
                Dave

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

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                Dave,

                If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                Why is it not done then ?

                I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                Paul Metz

                ________________________________

                From: Wetzel Dave [
                mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                Paul,
                Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                Best Wishes,
                Dave

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


                -----Original Message-----
                From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                Dave,

                Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                Cheers
                Paul Metz
                www.integer-consult.com <
                http://www.integer-consult.com>

                ________________________________

                From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [
                mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                To: a@abc..Co.UK
                Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                 If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                Please contact me if you want more information.
                Best Wishes,
                Dave

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


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

                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.

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



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

                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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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

                 

              • Wetzel Dave
                Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost. Unlike man-made wealth it requires No labour and no capital. I do not assume that the
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                  Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                  Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                  Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                  No labour and no capital.

                  I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                  THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house. If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Dave

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

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                  To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                  I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after >

                  Paul

                  ________________________________

                  From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                  Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                  To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                  Your wrong Paul.

                  If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                  If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down. 

                  > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is also the project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                  If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                  > This would imply that a (climate) policy to improve the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                  Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                  > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                  Land is Not a cost of production.

                  > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost. 

                  Paul 

                  PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                  Best Wishes,
                  Dave

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


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                  To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                  Dave,

                  If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                  Why is it not done then ?

                  I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                  Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                  However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                  The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                  Paul Metz

                  ________________________________

                  From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                  Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                  To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                  Paul,
                  Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                  But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                  A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Dave

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


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                  To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                  Dave,

                  Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                  If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                  Cheers
                  Paul Metz
                  www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com > >

                  ________________________________

                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [
                  mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                  Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                  To: a@abc..Co.UK
                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                  If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                  1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                  Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                  Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                  2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                   If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                  3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                  A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                  Please contact me if you want more information.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Dave

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


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

                  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.

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





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

                  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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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



                • Paul Metz
                  Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost. Unlike man-made wealth it requires No labour and no capital. ... I do not assume that the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                    Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper
                    Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                    Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                    No labour and no capital. 
                     
                    > Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production.  

                    I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                    THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house.  
                     
                    > No, the value and thus the price of land solely depends on the location (including zoning rules) and the demand.
                     
                     If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down. 
                     
                    > No, the user of the house will accept a higher price when the energy-efficiency is better. Landvalue will not change.
                     
                    Paul
                     
                    Best Wishes,
                    Dave

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

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                    To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                    I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after
                    >

                    Paul

                    ________________________________

                    From: Wetzel Dave [
                    mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                    Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                    To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                    Your wrong Paul.

                    If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                    If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down. 

                    > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is also the
                    project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                    If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                    > This would imply that a (climate) policy to improve
                    the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                    Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                    > This is
                    difficult. You mention land costs first and now land rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                    Land is Not a cost of production.

                    >
                    Land is a factor of production, which has a market value and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost. 

                    Paul 

                    PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                    Best Wishes,
                    Dave

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


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                    To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                    Dave,

                    If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                    Why is it not done then ?

                    I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                    Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                    However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                    The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                    Paul Metz

                    ________________________________

                    From: Wetzel Dave [
                    mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                    Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                    To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                    Paul,
                    Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                    But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                    A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                    Best Wishes,
                    Dave

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


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                    To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                    Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                    Dave,

                    Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                    If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                    Cheers
                    Paul Metz
                    www.integer-consult.com <
                    http://www.integer-consult.com >
                    >

                    ________________________________

                    From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [
                    mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                    Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                    To: a@abc..Co.UK
                    Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                    If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                    1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                    Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                    Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                    2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                     If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                    3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                    A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                    Please contact me if you want more information.
                    Best Wishes,
                    Dave

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


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

                    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.

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





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

                    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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at
                    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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



                  • Wetzel Dave
                    Dave Wetzel: Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost. Unlike man-made wealth it requires No labour and no capital. Paul Metz
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                      Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                      Dave Wetzel:
                      "Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                      Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                      No labour and no capital."

                      Paul Metz replied:  > "Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production." 

                      No Paul.
                      There are 3 factors of production.
                      1. Labour.
                      2. Capital.
                      3. Land (and natural resources).

                      Capital is man-made wealth.
                      It is used to create more wealth
                      (or is wealth in the process of production).
                      ie the car factory is Capital.
                      the robots and machine tools in the car factory are Capital.
                      the part-finished cars in the car factory are Capital.
                      the car showroom is Capital.
                      the cars in the car showroom are Capital.

                      Capital is produced by labour being applied to land.
                      Unlike land - Capital DOES have a cost of production.

                      Best Wishes,
                      Dave

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

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                      To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thu Aug 30 14:37:02 2007
                      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                      Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                      Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                      No labour and no capital.

                      > Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production. 

                      I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                      THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house. 

                      > No, the value and thus the price of land solely depends on the location (including zoning rules) and the demand.

                       If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down.

                      > No, the user of the house will accept a higher price when the energy-efficiency is better. Landvalue will not change.

                      Paul

                      Best Wishes,
                      Dave

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


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                      To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                      I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after >

                      Paul

                      ________________________________

                      From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                      Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                      To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                      Your wrong Paul.

                      If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                      If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down.

                      > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is also the project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                      If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                      > This would imply that a (climate) policy to improve the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                      Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                      > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                      Land is Not a cost of production.

                      > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost.

                      Paul

                      PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                      Best Wishes,
                      Dave

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


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                      To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                      Dave,

                      If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                      Why is it not done then ?

                      I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                      Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                      However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                      The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                      Paul Metz

                      ________________________________

                      From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...>  <mailto:Davewetzel@... > > ]
                      Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                      To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                      Paul,
                      Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                      But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                      A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                      Best Wishes,
                      Dave

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


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                      To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                      Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                      Dave,

                      Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                      If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                      Cheers
                      Paul Metz
                      www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com > >

                      ________________________________

                      From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [ <http://www.integer-consult.com > mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>  <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com > > ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                      Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                      To: a@abc..Co.UK
                      Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                      If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                      1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                      Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                      Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                      2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                       If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                      3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                      A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                      Please contact me if you want more information.
                      Best Wishes,
                      Dave

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


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

                      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.

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





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

                      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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany> , This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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




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

                      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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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

                       

                    • Paul Metz
                      Dave, OK, this was a side remark and I agree that the Factors are not as identical in character as I wrote. Only Nature - land and other resources - is
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                        Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper
                        Dave,
                         
                        OK, this was a side remark and I agree that the Factors are not as identical in character as I wrote.
                        Only Nature - land and other resources - is available as such. Both Labour and Capital require Nature and each other to come into existence.
                         
                        Can I understand that you silently agree with my view on the main issue: the effect of environmental policies, like a carbon tax, on land value ?
                         
                        Regards
                        Paul


                        From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                        Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 19:31
                        To: metz@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                        Dave Wetzel:
                        "Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                        Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                        No labour and no capital."

                        Paul Metz replied:  > "Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production." 

                        No Paul.
                        There are 3 factors of production.
                        1. Labour.
                        2. Capital.
                        3. Land (and natural resources).

                        Capital is man-made wealth.
                        It is used to create more wealth
                        (or is wealth in the process of production).
                        ie the car factory is Capital.
                        the robots and machine tools in the car factory are Capital.
                        the part-finished cars in the car factory are Capital.
                        the car showroom is Capital.
                        the cars in the car showroom are Capital.

                        Capital is produced by labour being applied to land.
                        Unlike land - Capital DOES have a cost of production.

                        Best Wishes,
                        Dave

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

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                        To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Thu Aug 30 14:37:02 2007
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                        Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                        Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                        No labour and no capital.

                        > Yes, that
                        characterises all Factors of Production. 

                        I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                        THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house. 

                        > No, the value and thus the
                        price of land solely depends on the location (including zoning rules) and the demand.

                         If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down.

                        > No, the user of the house will accept a higher price when the
                        energy-efficiency is better. Landvalue will not change.

                        Paul

                        Best Wishes,
                        Dave

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


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                        To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                        I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after
                        >

                        Paul

                        ________________________________

                        From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                        Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                        To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                        Your wrong Paul.

                        If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                        If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down.

                        > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is
                        also the project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                        If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                        > This would imply that a (climate) policy
                        to improve the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                        Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                        > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land
                        rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                        Land is Not a cost of production.

                        > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value
                        and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost.

                        Paul

                        PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                        Best Wishes,
                        Dave

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


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                        To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                        Dave,

                        If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                        Why is it not done then ?

                        I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                        Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                        However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                        The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                        Paul Metz

                        ________________________________

                        From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...>  <mailto:Davewetzel@... < A>> > ]
                        Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                        To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                        Paul,
                        Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                        But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                        A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                        Best Wishes,
                        Dave

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


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                        Dave,

                        Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                        If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                        Cheers
                        Paul Metz
                        www.integer-consult.com <
                        http://www.integer-consult.com >
                        >

                        ________________________________

                        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [ <http://www.integer-consult.com
                        >
                        href="mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>  <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com < A>> > ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                        Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                        To: a@abc..Co.UK
                        Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                        If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                        1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                        Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                        Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                        2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                         If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                        3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                        A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                        Please contact me if you want more information.
                        Best Wishes,
                        Dave

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


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

                        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.

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





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

                        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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at
                        http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany> , This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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




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

                        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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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

                         

                      • Wetzel Dave
                        Paul, Thanks for accepting my point re land is a free gift of nature. I also still maintain that a comprehensive requirement by government that all new
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                          Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                          Paul,
                          Thanks for accepting my point re land is a free gift of nature.

                          I also still maintain that a comprehensive requirement by government that all new buildings should have a higher standard of insulation and other measures to reduce their carbon footprint will be deducted from land prices.
                          However, why don't we let others on this list adjudicate?
                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

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

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thu Aug 30 20:09:58 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                          Dave,

                          OK, this was a side remark and I agree that the Factors are not as identical in character as I wrote.
                          Only Nature - land and other resources - is available as such. Both Labour and Capital require Nature and each other to come into existence.

                          Can I understand that you silently agree with my view on the main issue: the effect of environmental policies, like a carbon tax, on land value ?

                          Regards
                          Paul

                          ________________________________

                          From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                          Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 19:31
                          To: metz@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                          Dave Wetzel:
                          "Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                          Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                          No labour and no capital."

                          Paul Metz replied:  > "Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production."

                          No Paul.
                          There are 3 factors of production.
                          1. Labour.
                          2. Capital.
                          3. Land (and natural resources).

                          Capital is man-made wealth.
                          It is used to create more wealth
                          (or is wealth in the process of production).
                          ie the car factory is Capital.
                          the robots and machine tools in the car factory are Capital.
                          the part-finished cars in the car factory are Capital.
                          the car showroom is Capital.
                          the cars in the car showroom are Capital.

                          Capital is produced by labour being applied to land.
                          Unlike land - Capital DOES have a cost of production.

                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

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


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thu Aug 30 14:37:02 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                          Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                          Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                          No labour and no capital.

                          > Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production.

                          I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                          THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house.

                          > No, the value and thus the price of land solely depends on the location (including zoning rules) and the demand.

                           If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down.

                          > No, the user of the house will accept a higher price when the energy-efficiency is better. Landvalue will not change.

                          Paul

                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

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


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                          I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after >

                          Paul

                          ________________________________

                          From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                          Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                          To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                          Your wrong Paul.

                          If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                          If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down.

                          > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is also the project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                          If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                          > This would imply that a (climate) policy to improve the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                          Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                          > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                          Land is Not a cost of production.

                          > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost.

                          Paul

                          PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

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


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                          Dave,

                          If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                          Why is it not done then ?

                          I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                          Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                          However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                          The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                          Paul Metz

                          ________________________________

                          From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...>  <mailto:Davewetzel@... > > ]
                          Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                          To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                          Paul,
                          Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                          But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                          A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

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


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                          Dave,

                          Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                          If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                          Cheers
                          Paul Metz
                          www.integer-consult.com < <mailto:Davewetzel@... > http://www.integer-consult.com > >

                          ________________________________

                          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [ <http://www.integer-consult.com > <http://www.integer-consult.com > mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>  <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com > > ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                          Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                          To: a@abc..Co.UK
                          Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                          If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                          1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                          Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                          Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                          2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                           If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                          3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                          A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                          Please contact me if you want more information.
                          Best Wishes,
                          Dave

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


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

                          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.

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





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

                          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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com > http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany> , This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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






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

                          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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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



                        • Roy Langston
                          ... Surely our case is strong enough without such overstatements, which can only sow doubt as they are so transparently untrue. There are two basic components
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 30, 2007
                            Dave Wetzel wrote:
                             
                            >But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of >building, the price is determined by the value of its location.
                            Surely our case is strong enough without such overstatements, which can only sow doubt as they are so transparently untrue.
                             
                            There are two basic components of real estate value: location and improvements. While the location may on average account for double or more what the improvements are worth, that does not mean the improvements are not worth anything. There are obvious examples of houses constructed in very low-value remote locations -- hunting lodges, prospectors' cabins, etc. -- where the building value is far more than the location value.
                             
                            IMO it would be more fruitful (as well as truer) to point out that the energy savings produced by more efficient house designs are dwarfed by the excess energy cost of transportation caused by land speculators holding city-center locations out of use or in low-intensity use. Foolish governments eagerly give tax breaks for energy-efficient construction, sacrificing revenue needed for other urgent problems, when they could achieve far greater energy savings by _imposing_ a substantial tax on location value, thus _increasing_ the funds available for other needs!
                             
                            -- Roy Langston


                            Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
                          • Paul Metz
                            Yes, the Cafe or its visitors seem to be too impressed ... or have holidays. Paul _____ From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk] Sent: vrijdag 31
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 31, 2007
                              Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper
                              Yes, the Cafe or its visitors seem to be too impressed ... or have holidays.
                               
                              Paul


                              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                              Sent: vrijdag 31 augustus 2007 1:57
                              To: metz@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                              Paul,
                              Thanks for accepting my point re land is a free gift of nature.

                              I also still maintain that a comprehensive requirement by government that all new buildings should have a higher standard of insulation and other measures to reduce their carbon footprint will be deducted from land prices.
                              However, why don't we let others on this list adjudicate?
                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

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

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                              To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Thu Aug 30 20:09:58 2007
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                              Dave,

                              OK, this was a side remark and I agree that the Factors are not as identical in character as I wrote.
                              Only Nature - land and other resources - is available as such. Both Labour and Capital require Nature and each other to come into existence.

                              Can I understand that you silently agree with my view on the main issue: the effect of environmental policies, like a carbon tax, on land value ?

                              Regards
                              Paul

                              ________________________________

                              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                              Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 19:31
                              To: metz@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                              Dave Wetzel:
                              "Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                              Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                              No labour and no capital."

                              Paul Metz replied:  > "Yes, that characterises all Factors of Production."

                              No Paul.
                              There are 3 factors of production.
                              1. Labour.
                              2. Capital.
                              3. Land (and natural resources).

                              Capital is man-made wealth.
                              It is used to create more wealth
                              (or is wealth in the process of production).
                              ie the car factory is Capital.
                              the robots and machine tools in the car factory are Capital.
                              the part-finished cars in the car factory are Capital.
                              the car showroom is Capital.
                              the cars in the car showroom are Capital.

                              Capital is produced by labour being applied to land.
                              Unlike land - Capital DOES have a cost of production.

                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

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


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                              To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Thu Aug 30 14:37:02 2007
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                              Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                              Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                              No labour and no capital.

                              > Yes, that
                              characterises all Factors of Production.

                              I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                              THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house.

                              > No, the value and thus the price of
                              land solely depends on the location (including zoning rules) and the demand.

                               If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down.

                              > No, the user of the house will accept a higher price when the
                              energy-efficiency is better. Landvalue will not change.

                              Paul

                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

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


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                              To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                              I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after
                              >

                              Paul

                              ________________________________

                              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                              Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                              To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                              Your wrong Paul.

                              If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                              If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down.

                              > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is
                              also the project developer. Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                              If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                              > This would imply that a (climate) policy
                              to improve the house insulation standard will drive down land value ?

                              Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                              > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land
                              rent. For the project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                              Land is Not a cost of production.

                              > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value
                              and price. Its use is not free, so it has a cost.

                              Paul

                              PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

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


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                              To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                              Dave,

                              If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                              Why is it not done then ?

                              I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                              Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                              However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                              The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                              Paul Metz

                              ________________________________

                              From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...>  <mailto:Davewetzel@...
                              > > ]
                              Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                              To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                              Paul,
                              Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                              But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                              A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

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


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                              To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                              Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                              Dave,

                              Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                              If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                              Cheers
                              Paul Metz
                              www.integer-consult.com < <mailto:Davewetzel@... < A>> http://www.integer-consult.com >
                              >

                              ________________________________

                              From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [ <http://www.integer-consult.com > <http://www.integer-consult.com
                              >
                              href="mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>  <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                              > > ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                              Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                              To: a@abc..Co.UK
                              Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                              If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                              1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                              Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                              Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                              2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                               If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                              3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                              A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                              Please contact me if you want more information.
                              Best Wishes,
                              Dave

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


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

                              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.

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





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

                              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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com < A>> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany> , This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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






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

                              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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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



                            • Roy Langston
                              ... No, because the cost change would not affect all parcels in proportion to their rent, as LVT would. ... Yes, but not by exactly the same amount. ... Not by
                              Message 14 of 15 , Aug 31, 2007
                                Dave Wetzel wrote:

                                >If building costs halved, all houses would sell for the same >price with the landowners receiving more for their land.

                                No, because the cost change would not affect all parcels in proportion to their rent, as LVT would.

                                >If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go >down.

                                Yes, but not by exactly the same amount.

                                >If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would >come down.

                                Not by much, as it would have a minimal effect on the difference from marginal land.

                                >Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have >been met.

                                But insulation also saves costs, and unlike LVT, an increased construction cost does not affect the advantage of all parcels in proportion to their rent.

                                -- Roy Langston


                                All new Yahoo! Mail -
                                Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
                              • Harry Pollard
                                Dave, The cost of houses is subject to price mechanism control. However, in a booming situation like today, the building industry may not be able to keep up
                                Message 15 of 15 , Sep 2, 2007

                                  Dave,

                                   

                                  The cost of houses is subject to price mechanism control. However, in a booming situation like today, the building industry may not be able to keep up with demand, which would raise improvement prices.

                                   

                                  Also, if builders have trouble meeting demand because of site shortages, this will keep the price above ‘equilibrium’.

                                   

                                  But the major increase in cost stems from soaring land values. There is no price mechanism discipline on land costs and they will keep rising to whatever the market will bear.

                                     

                                  And that’s the problem – while a housing boom should provide much higher wages for everyone engaged in building, the increased housing price mostly goes to the landholder, who contributes nothing positive to production.

                                   

                                  Harry

                                   

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

                                  Harry Pollard

                                  Henry George School 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: Thursday, August 30, 2007 6:20 AM
                                  To: metz@...; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                                   

                                  Land is provided by mother nature free. It has no production cost.
                                  Unlike man-made wealth it requires
                                  No labour and no capital.

                                  I do not assume that the landowner is also the project developer!

                                  THE developer buys the land from a landowner. THE price paid is dependent upon the cost of building the house and the market price for the house. If the cost of building houses goes up then the price that this, (or another developer) is prepared/able to pay to the landowner goes down.
                                  Best Wishes,
                                  Dave

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

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                  To: Wetzel Dave; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Thu Aug 30 13:31:47 2007
                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                                  I am not convinced yet. See some remarks after >

                                  Paul

                                  ________________________________

                                  From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@...]
                                  Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 13:23
                                  To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                                  Your wrong Paul.

                                  If building costs halved,  all houses would sell for the same price with the landowners receiving more for their land.
                                  If building costs doubled on all houses land costs would go down. 

                                  > Here you seem to assume that the landowner is also the project developer.
                                  Often they are not, at least in my country. Anyhow there are 2 different roles.

                                  If all homes had to be fully insulated then land costs would come down.

                                  > This would imply that a (climate) policy to improve the house insulation
                                  standard will drive down land value ?

                                  Land rent is a surplus that is left after all other costs have been met.

                                  > This is difficult. You mention land costs first and now land rent. For the
                                  project developer the property rent counts, for the landowner the land rent. Both can negotiate with their client - the buyer or leaser of the house and the project developer, respectively.

                                  Land is Not a cost of production.

                                  > Land is a factor of production, which has a market value and price. Its
                                  use is not free, so it has a cost. 

                                  Paul 

                                  PS The address a@abc..Co.UK you included is nonexistent .. ?  It bounces.



                                  Best Wishes,
                                  Dave

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


                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Paul Metz <metz@...>
                                  To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Thu Aug 30 10:22:22 2007
                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                                  Dave,

                                  If that is the case, a legal standard for new houses to be highly energy-efficient would not (further) increase the sales price of these houses.
                                  Why is it not done then ?

                                  I believe that extra costs will always be passed on.
                                  Both a better insulated garage in London and a better insulated house anywhere will have higher prices than the cheaper alternatives.

                                  However, this is no obstacle: the lower cost of use of these houses will justify a higher purchase price for the owners, so they will pay without regret - up to a level with a reasonable payback.

                                  The LVT has its benefits, but will not interfere in the energy-efficiency and other qualities of buildings, which require separate policies.

                                  Paul Metz

                                  ________________________________

                                  From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@... <mailto:Davewetzel@...> ]
                                  Sent: donderdag 30 augustus 2007 0:19
                                  To: metz@...; a@abc..Co.UK; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                                  Paul,
                                  Yes, better insulation makes a house more expensive to build.

                                  But the final price of a house is not related to the cost of building, the price is determined by the value of its location.

                                  A garage in Central London sells for more than a 3 bedroom house in many other parts of the country.
                                  Best Wishes,
                                  Dave

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


                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                                  To: Wetzel Dave; a@abc..Co.UK <a@abc..Co.UK>; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Wed Aug 29 14:56:26 2007
                                  Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper

                                  Dave,

                                  Perhaps I missed the reason to write this, but I cannot understand the reasoning in 1.

                                  If a house is much better insulated, that has a cost. Usually it makes a house more expensive to buy and cheaper to use.

                                  Cheers
                                  Paul Metz
                                  www.integer-consult.com <http://www.integer-consult.com
                                  > >

                                  ________________________________

                                  From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [
                                  mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Wetzel Dave
                                  Sent: donderdag 23 augustus 2007 11:03
                                  To: a@abc..Co.UK
                                  Subject: [LandCafe] Re: Housing Green Paper



                                  If you are making a response to the Housing Green Paper - there are 3 major points that could be made.

                                  1. Higher carbon/climate change standards do NOT increase the price of homes. THE selling price of a home is decided by the  locational advantage it offers the purchaser.
                                  Hence, a house in central London may cost the same to build as a home in the outskirts of Bradford but the selling price of the London house will be ten or even more times higher than the Bradford one.
                                  Higher standards in building quality will have the effect of reducing the value of housing land because it is this value that soaks up locational advantages. (Even in Bradford, 2 otherwise identical houses will have different site values if one is closer to amenities, a park, a water view, a railway station, a motorway junction, enjoys less crime, has access to better schools etc. than the other one.

                                  2. THE second point arises from the first. Why do we give locational advantages to private landowners?
                                   If, as it surely is, the case that  locational advantage adds to land values and that locational advantage is created by mother nature and the whole community (yes, individuals as well as the public AND private sectors) why do we not insist that this unearnedl additional value is repaid to the community through an annual Location Benefit Levy (or Annual Land Value Tax) that could then be used to reduce taxes that damage the economy, reduce interest rates, create more productive jobs (in a social as well as a business sense), pay off the national debt, finance essential services and infrastructure that add to locational advantages (and hence land values) and provide a national land dividend to all citizens?

                                  3. THE third point is that as soon as landowners know that the government, housing associations and private housebuilding companies are building more housing for sale and for affordable rents then they will simply increase the price of their land so that fewer houses will be built with the total budget available and landowners once again will take is all to the cleaners.

                                  A Location Benefit Levy would of course address this problem.

                                  Please contact me if you want more information.
                                  Best Wishes,
                                  Dave

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


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

                                  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.

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





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

                                  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 email has been sent from Transport for London, or from one of the companies within its control within the meaning of Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Further details about TfL and its subsidiary companies can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ourcompany, This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

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


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