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

Ownership transfer

Expand Messages
  • Albert Hartheimer [mailto:ahartheimer@ya
    Al Hartheimer here: In response to Radu s thoughts in response to Ed Dodson s. Radu: In actual practice, in the cities in Pennsylvania and Australia and New
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Al Hartheimer here:

      In response to Radu's thoughts in response to Ed Dodson's.

      Radu:

      In actual practice, in the cities in Pennsylvania and Australia and New
      Zealand, some of which do not tax buildings at all, there is plenty of open
      space and parkland. When there are examples that exisit in real situations,
      I find it is better to consult those experiences rather than to theorize.

      When land is uptaxed and buildings are downtaxed there are alternative
      courses of action for owners. They can pay the taxes and continue to hold
      the land. If they choose to not do that, they can sell the land. The new
      owner may or may not build. Many communities are so large and have so much
      land that shifting all taxes to land is far from confiscatory.

      On the other hand, it is a good practice for a community to have a plan to
      dedicate a portion of the land in the community to open space of one kind or
      another and then to take that land for the people by eminent domaine. When
      a city has only a land tax, the increased tax will be capitalized into a
      decrease in the selling price and the community can buy the land without
      paying a speculative gain.

      Al Hartheimer
      radu@... wrote:



      Ed Dodson here:
      Nature has a zero cost of production in terms of labor expended and/or capital goods utilized. "Rent" is the measure of the difference between locations and between natural resource-laden lands. There are just not enough "best locations" and "best natural resource-laden lands" to go around. So, some come to have more exchange value than others, the difference having nothing to do with what the individual deedholders do or do not do. This exchange value has to do with the fact that supply is finite, population keeps increasing and the demand for locations is infinite. My perspective, then, is that the failure of society to collect this fund for use by all of society (even for partial distribution to each citizen as a dividend) "is more akin to theft."

      Radu replies:
      So if somebody decides not to develop a piece of ! land and rather leave it in its natural state, as a natural retreat for example, it is at disadvantage and based on your perspective Ed, the land is forced into development by the taxing mechanism. I guess there is no value for the society in the air refreshing function the trees on lot perform and there is no value in nature preservation, lets just build up all the parks in Philly or London or New York (not many left anyway) because is in society's best interest. I don't think so. Land should be taxed based on its use and if it is not used, then let it be because we all benefit from it freely.

      My best wishes, and some fresh air ( bottled from the supermarket)
      Radu Seserman

      Doris D. & Albert S. Hartheimer
      POB 2080, 42 Greylock Estates Road
      Lanesborough, MA 01237
      Phone 413-443-0030
      Fax 413-496-9773
      Al's Cell: 413-441-5398
      Doris' Cell: 413-281-8234
    • Paul Metz
      I have the impression that Radu ignores - and Al does neither uses the terms - the practice of land use planning, named zoning in the USA. This practice is
      Message 2 of 9 , Dec 13, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I have the impression that Radu ignores - and Al does neither uses the
        terms - the practice of land use planning, named zoning in the USA.

        This practice is quite compatible and probably synergistic with LVT.

        _____________________________________________

        INTEGeR... consult

        Dr Paul E. Metz Managing Consultant
        Phone +31 26 362 04 50

        Mobile +31 653 76 58 85
        Email Metz@...
        URL http://www.integerconsult.org

        Market intelligence for profitable green business
        _____________________________________________


        -----Original Message-----
        From: ahartheimer@...] [mailto:ahartheimer@...]]
        Sent: zaterdag 11 december 2004 17:28
        To: 'Land Café ( lc1)'
        Subject: [LandCafe] Ownership transfer



        Al Hartheimer here:

        In response to Radu's thoughts in response to Ed Dodson's.

        Radu:

        In actual practice, in the cities in Pennsylvania and Australia and New
        Zealand, some of which do not tax buildings at all, there is plenty of open
        space and parkland. When there are examples that exisit in real situations,
        I find it is better to consult those experiences rather than to theorize.

        When land is uptaxed and buildings are downtaxed there are alternative
        courses of action for owners. They can pay the taxes and continue to hold
        the land. If they choose to not do that, they can sell the land. The new
        owner may or may not build. Many communities are so large and have so much
        land that shifting all taxes to land is far from confiscatory.

        On the other hand, it is a good practice for a community to have a plan to
        dedicate a portion of the land in the community to open space of one kind or
        another and then to take that land for the people by eminent domaine. When
        a city has only a land tax, the increased tax will be capitalized into a
        decrease in the selling price and the community can buy the land without
        paying a speculative gain.

        Al Hartheimer
        radu@... wrote:



        Ed Dodson here:
        Nature has a zero cost of production in terms of labor expended and/or
        capital goods utilized. "Rent" is the measure of the difference between
        locations and between natural resource-laden lands. There are just not
        enough "best locations" and "best natural resource-laden lands" to go
        around. So, some come to have more exchange value than others, the
        difference having nothing to do with what the individual deedholders do or
        do not do. This exchange value has to do with the fact that supply is
        finite, population keeps increasing and the demand for locations is
        infinite. My perspective, then, is that the failure of society to collect
        this fund for use by all of society (even for partial distribution to each
        citizen as a dividend) "is more akin to theft."

        Radu replies:
        So if somebody decides not to develop a piece of ! land and rather leave it
        in its natural state, as a natural retreat for example, it is at
        disadvantage and based on your perspective Ed, the land is forced into
        development by the taxing mechanism. I guess there is no value for the
        society in the air refreshing function the trees on lot perform and there is
        no value in nature preservation, lets just build up all the parks in Philly
        or London or New York (not many left anyway) because is in society's best
        interest. I don't think so. Land should be taxed based on its use and if it
        is not used, then let it be because we all benefit from it freely.

        My best wishes, and some fresh air ( bottled from the supermarket)
        Radu Seserman

        Doris D. & Albert S. Hartheimer
        POB 2080, 42 Greylock Estates Road
        Lanesborough, MA 01237
        Phone 413-443-0030
        Fax 413-496-9773
        Al's Cell: 413-441-5398
        Doris' Cell: 413-281-8234







        Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
        (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
        To post message to group: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        To unsubscribe: LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        Consult Value Capture Initiative at: http://ecoplan.org
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.