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

Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?

Expand Messages
  • Jock Coats
    Some (pretty random) thoughts: The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Some (pretty random) thoughts:

      The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
      existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
      as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
      progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
      always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
      particular?).

      Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
      which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".

      It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
      that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
      might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
      "location".

      Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long way
      off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
      reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
      like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".

      Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
      connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
      replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
      so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
      by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get on
      board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
      "the blues".

      Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
      tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
      with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
      on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
      what will not on the public stage.

      On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
      proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
      perhaps?

      All the best,

      Jock

      On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:

      > Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
      > journalists
      > and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
      >
      > The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
      > advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
      >
      > 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
      > idea of a
      > new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
      > the UK
      > Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
      >
      > 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
      > group
      > (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
      > use
      > "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
      >
      > 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
      > collected by
      > Local or Regional Government.
      --
      J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
      T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
    • Dan Sullivan
      Nothing is more self-destructive than trying to defend the pretense that your proposal is not a new tax when your adversaries can effectively insist that it is
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Nothing is more self-destructive than trying to defend the pretense
        that your proposal is not a new tax when your adversaries can
        effectively insist that it is one.

        We were out-spent 100:1 on a referendum the promoters dubbed the
        "Regional Renaissance Initiative," which was to fund, among other
        things, subsidies for two sports stadiums from a 1% county sales tax.
        We distributed brochures and lawn signs titled, "No Stadium Tax." As
        soon as the promoters started denying that their proposal was a
        stadium tax, we knew we had them. The referendum was voted down
        2:1.

        One of the rules of effective advocacy is to never make unnecessary
        claims that you will have to defend, even if you can defend them. The
        time you spend defending those claims is, at the very best, a diversion
        from the time you could be spending pressing your advantage. In this
        case, you could be comparing your tax to other taxes and be
        constantly gaining ground, or you could be continually explaining
        how your tax is not really a tax, and struggling against the accusation
        that you are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

        I say call it a tax and be done with it. Land value tax has had many
        victories, but I never heard of a successful campaign to get it
        implemented by claiming it was something other than a tax. In a
        philosophical sense it is truly a user fee and not a tax, but the
        philosophers have never been a significant segment of the voters, nor
        have they ever had a significant impact on voters.

        -ds

        On 30 Jan 2005 at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:

        >
        >
        > Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
        > journalists and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been
        > discussed.
        >
        > The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
        > advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
        >
        > 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
        > idea of a new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we
        > call for the UK Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
        >
        > 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
        > group (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be
        > free to use "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
        >
        > 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
        > collected by Local or Regional Government.
        >
        >
        > We suggest that no more than two people represent each organisation.
        > That this "LBL Discussion Group" will not make a decision but discuss
        > the proposition and if there is a consensus for change we report back
        > to our respective bodies for further discussion. The "LBL Discussion
        > Group" will finally meet again, consider all representations, and make
        > a decision which will not be binding on any participating group or
        > individuals.
        >
        > Can you please discuss this idea with your colleagues and reply
        > whether in principle you are prepared to participate in such a
        > discussion.
        >
        > Dave
        > Dave Wetzel;
        > Chair: Labour Land Campaign.
        > Tel: 020 7941 4200
        > Intl Tel: +44 207 941 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.
        > **********************************************************************
        > *************
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > --------------------~--> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide
        > underprivileged children resources often lacking in public schools.
        > Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
        > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
        > >
        >
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Paul Metz
        Paul Metz here: A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn from the ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Paul Metz here:

          A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn from the
          ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually implemented in a
          number of European countries. The advocates of ETR have decided NOT to
          advocate "environmental taxation and spending", but stress the
          "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".

          "Not more and higher, but better taxes".

          This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement -
          efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should be
          presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and inconsistent taxes,
          guaranteeing the same revenue at lower collection costs and/or with some
          positive effect on economic activities, income distribution, etc.

          In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to finance
          infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the positive effect of
          such investments on the value of sites. But so do other public expenditures
          in schools, parks, etc. and city design, land use planning, zoning.

          For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
          revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the taxation
          principle and avoids debating new spending. It would attract many more
          supporters from non-labour parties, as only the landowning elite will not
          support this reform, who even in conservative parties represent a minority.

          _____________________________________________


          Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:

          The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
          existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
          as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
          progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
          always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
          particular?).

          Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
          which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".

          It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
          that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
          might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
          "location".

          Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long way
          off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
          reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
          like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".

          Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
          connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
          replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
          so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
          by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get on
          board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
          "the blues".

          Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
          tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
          with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
          on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
          what will not on the public stage.

          On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
          proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
          perhaps?

          All the best,

          Jock

          On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:

          > Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
          > journalists
          > and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
          >
          > The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
          > advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
          >
          > 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
          > idea of a
          > new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
          > the UK
          > Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
          >
          > 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
          > group
          > (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
          > use
          > "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
          >
          > 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
          > collected by
          > Local or Regional Government.
          --
          J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
          T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767







          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
        • Peter Gibb
          Peter Gibb here. Paul Metz writes that only the landowning elite will not support this reform [lvt] . But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Peter Gibb here.

            Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support this
            reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
            economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their homes. This
            interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century "landowning
            elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of choice for the
            modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest group, in a rising
            or buoyant housing market, which you identify as the "only"
            constituency - "a minority" - which would not be supportive of this
            reform (although I can think of others). The modern "landowning elite"
            is not a minority and cannot be discounted: our reforms must appeal to
            it.




            Peter Gibb
            chief executive

            Henry George Foundation
            212 Piccadilly
            London W1J 9HG
            Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
            Mob 07974 933 213
            gibb@...
            www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org



            On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:

            >
            >
            >
            > Paul Metz here:
            >
            > A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
            > from the
            > ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually implemented in
            > a
            > number of European countries. The advocates of ETR have decided NOT to
            > advocate "environmental taxation and spending", but stress the
            > "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
            >
            > "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
            >
            > This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement -
            > efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should be
            > presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and inconsistent
            > taxes,
            > guaranteeing the same revenue at lower collection costs and/or with
            > some
            > positive effect on economic activities, income distribution, etc.
            >
            > In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
            > finance
            > infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the positive effect
            > of
            > such investments on the value of sites. But so do other public
            > expenditures
            > in schools, parks, etc. and city design, land use planning, zoning.
            >
            > For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
            > revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
            > taxation
            > principle and avoids debating new spending. It would attract many more
            > supporters from non-labour parties, as only the landowning elite will
            > not
            > support this reform, who even in conservative parties represent a
            > minority.
            >
            > _____________________________________________
            >
            >
            > Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
            >
            > The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
            > existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
            > as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
            > progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
            > always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
            > particular?).
            >
            > Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
            > which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".
            >
            > It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
            > that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
            > might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
            > "location".
            >
            > Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long way
            > off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
            > reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
            > like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
            >
            > Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
            > connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
            > replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
            > so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
            > by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get on
            > board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
            > "the blues".
            >
            > Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
            > tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
            > with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
            > on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
            > what will not on the public stage.
            >
            > On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
            > proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
            > perhaps?
            >
            > All the best,
            >
            > Jock
            >
            > On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
            >
            >> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
            >> journalists
            >> and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
            >>
            >> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
            >> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
            >>
            >> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
            >> idea of a
            >> new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
            >> the UK
            >> Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
            >>
            >> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
            >> group
            >> (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
            >> use
            >> "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
            >>
            >> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
            >> collected by
            >> Local or Regional Government.
            > --
            > J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
            > T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Dan Sullivan
            I am reminded of a scene from the Woody Allen movie, Love and Death. It is in front of an old inn that has a banner, Village Idiots Convention -- Welcome,
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I am reminded of a scene from the Woody Allen movie, "Love and
              Death." It is in front of an old inn that has a banner, "Village Idiots
              Convention -- Welcome, Idiots." In front of the inn, various idiots are
              wandering about aimlessly. A nobleman's coach rushes by, knocking
              one of the idiots to the ground, and one of the horses throws up a clod
              of earth that lands in the hands of the fallen idiot. The idiot stands up,
              steadfastly gazing at the clod of earth in his hands and exclaims,
              "Land! I've got LAND!"

              And so it is no surprise that 69% of Brits own their own homes, and
              are, in a trivial sense, landowners. The ratio is not so different in the
              Pennsylvania cities that have adopted land value tax. How do we
              convince them to support, or at least accept, a tax that they pay?

              First, we compare their tax burden under land value tax to the burden
              under other taxes that raise the same money. In all the Pennsylvania
              cities, land value tax costs them less. Next, we show how other taxes
              are driving away economic vitality and how land value tax drives
              away slumlords and stimulates economic activity. After that, well,
              actually, there is nothing after that. Those two things have always
              been enough. Everything else seems to either confuse or alarm people.

              Some people tell them that it is not merely a tax, but a gradual
              transition to a system whereby they have to rent their own land. Those
              people invariably come from the ranks of our opposition. Fortunately,
              they are easily dismissed as alarmist. We aren't really in trouble until
              we get people from our own ranks saying such things, in which case
              we have to distance ourselves from them and bring the question back
              to a comparison of taxes.

              It's not that the people are stupid, but that the vehicle for political
              discourse is stupid. Any concept that departs from general
              expectations becomes a target for fear mongering and ridicule.

              -ds
              On 3 Feb 2005 at 13:16, Peter Gibb wrote:

              >
              > Peter Gibb here.
              >
              > Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support this
              > reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
              > economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their homes.
              > This interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century
              > "landowning elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of
              > choice for the modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest
              > group, in a rising or buoyant housing market, which you identify as
              > the "only" constituency - "a minority" - which would not be
              > supportive of this reform (although I can think of others). The modern
              > "landowning elite" is not a minority and cannot be discounted: our
              > reforms must appeal to it.
            • Paul Metz
              Paul Metz here: Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%. But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ? I.e. how much land is not
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Paul Metz here:

                Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%.
                But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ?
                I.e. how much land is not used for houses and owned by how many others ?
                Probably that is relevant information for this case.

                _____________________________________________


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2005 14:16
                To: Paul Metz
                Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?


                Peter Gibb here.

                Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support this
                reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
                economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their homes. This
                interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century "landowning
                elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of choice for the
                modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest group, in a rising
                or buoyant housing market, which you identify as the "only"
                constituency - "a minority" - which would not be supportive of this
                reform (although I can think of others). The modern "landowning elite"
                is not a minority and cannot be discounted: our reforms must appeal to
                it.




                Peter Gibb
                chief executive

                Henry George Foundation
                212 Piccadilly
                London W1J 9HG
                Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                Mob 07974 933 213
                gibb@...
                www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org



                On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:

                >
                >
                >
                > Paul Metz here:
                >
                > A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
                > from the
                > ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually implemented in
                > a
                > number of European countries. The advocates of ETR have decided NOT to
                > advocate "environmental taxation and spending", but stress the
                > "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
                >
                > "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
                >
                > This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement -
                > efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should be
                > presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and inconsistent
                > taxes,
                > guaranteeing the same revenue at lower collection costs and/or with
                > some
                > positive effect on economic activities, income distribution, etc.
                >
                > In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
                > finance
                > infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the positive effect
                > of
                > such investments on the value of sites. But so do other public
                > expenditures
                > in schools, parks, etc. and city design, land use planning, zoning.
                >
                > For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
                > revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
                > taxation
                > principle and avoids debating new spending. It would attract many more
                > supporters from non-labour parties, as only the landowning elite will
                > not
                > support this reform, who even in conservative parties represent a
                > minority.
                >
                > _____________________________________________
                >
                >
                > Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
                >
                > The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                > existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
                > as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
                > progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
                > always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
                > particular?).
                >
                > Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                > which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".
                >
                > It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
                > that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
                > might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
                > "location".
                >
                > Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long way
                > off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                > reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                > like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
                >
                > Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                > connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                > replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
                > so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
                > by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get on
                > board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
                > "the blues".
                >
                > Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                > tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                > with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
                > on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
                > what will not on the public stage.
                >
                > On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
                > proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
                > perhaps?
                >
                > All the best,
                >
                > Jock
                >
                > On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                >
                >> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                >> journalists
                >> and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
                >>
                >> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                >> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                >>
                >> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                >> idea of a
                >> new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
                >> the UK
                >> Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
                >>
                >> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
                >> group
                >> (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
                >> use
                >> "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
                >>
                >> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                >> collected by
                >> Local or Regional Government.
                > --
                > J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                > T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > 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
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >




                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
              • Peter Gibb
                Peter Gibb here, Only 1243 landowners own three quarters of the privately-owned rural land in Scotland. This is a problem for many reasons (eg. development
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Peter Gibb here,

                  Only 1243 landowners own three quarters of the privately-owned rural land in Scotland. This is a problem for many reasons (eg. development of fragile rural communities, establishment of renewable energy schemes, ecological restoration of devastated highland landscapes, cultural and class colonialism, etc.).

                  But in land monopolist terms the aggregate worth of this landholding is only about £15b (although present circumstances means this may be rising). This is the value of the problem of the traditional 'landowning elite' in Scotland, expressed at the bottom line. Land reform measures are ensuring the breaking up of these private fiefdoms. So in Scotland it should be a problem on the wane: and viewed historically that seems to be what it is.

                  On the other hand 2 million householders in Scotland own their own homes. In land monopolist terms, the value of this new 'landowning elite' (domestic only - putting aside commercial for the moment) is some £100b. A far greater portion of the value of the commons, and a far greater potential contribution to the public purse. (So share of area is not so important - let the 'elite' Duke of Sutherland take his thousand acres: I'll take that single acre on London's Oxford Street, thank you.)

                  The most blatant downside of the developing urban situation is the 31% landless minority excluded from enjoyment of the community chest of the value of our common resources. Inheritence laws are ensuring that by the intergenerational transfer of landed privilege, though home ownership, a new urban landed class is forming and consolidating. Viewed historically this is manifesting as the great social issue of the age.

                  But we must be clear that the problem of political change is rarely a big problem: it's much more usually the aggregate of a lot of little problems: lots of individual people with their lives and their ideas to change. And they are attached to what we would take away from them. We must be sensitive to this. We must express ourselves mindfully. The problem is 69% ourselves. The majority of us are members of the strongest interest group standing between us and a brighter economic future. Let the 1243 eat their cake.



                  On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Paul Metz wrote:

                  >
                  > Paul Metz here:
                  >
                  > Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%.
                  > But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ?
                  > I.e. how much land is not used for houses and owned by how many others
                  > ?
                  > Probably that is relevant information for this case.
                  >
                  > _____________________________________________
                  >
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                  > Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2005 14:16
                  > To: Paul Metz
                  > Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                  > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?
                  >
                  >
                  > Peter Gibb here.
                  >
                  > Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support this
                  > reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
                  > economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their homes. This
                  > interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century "landowning
                  > elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of choice for the
                  > modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest group, in a rising
                  > or buoyant housing market, which you identify as the "only"
                  > constituency - "a minority" - which would not be supportive of this
                  > reform (although I can think of others). The modern "landowning elite"
                  > is not a minority and cannot be discounted: our reforms must appeal to
                  > it.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Peter Gibb
                  > chief executive
                  >
                  > Henry George Foundation
                  > 212 Piccadilly
                  > London W1J 9HG
                  > Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                  > Mob 07974 933 213
                  > gibb@...
                  > www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                  >
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Paul Metz here:
                  >>
                  >> A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
                  >> from the
                  >> ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually implemented in
                  >> a
                  >> number of European countries. The advocates of ETR have decided NOT to
                  >> advocate "environmental taxation and spending", but stress the
                  >> "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
                  >>
                  >> "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
                  >>
                  >> This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement -
                  >> efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should be
                  >> presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and inconsistent
                  >> taxes,
                  >> guaranteeing the same revenue at lower collection costs and/or with
                  >> some
                  >> positive effect on economic activities, income distribution, etc.
                  >>
                  >> In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
                  >> finance
                  >> infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the positive effect
                  >> of
                  >> such investments on the value of sites. But so do other public
                  >> expenditures
                  >> in schools, parks, etc. and city design, land use planning, zoning.
                  >>
                  >> For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
                  >> revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
                  >> taxation
                  >> principle and avoids debating new spending. It would attract many more
                  >> supporters from non-labour parties, as only the landowning elite will
                  >> not
                  >> support this reform, who even in conservative parties represent a
                  >> minority.
                  >>
                  >> _____________________________________________
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
                  >>
                  >> The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                  >> existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
                  >> as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
                  >> progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
                  >> always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
                  >> particular?).
                  >>
                  >> Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                  >> which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".
                  >>
                  >> It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
                  >> that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
                  >> might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
                  >> "location".
                  >>
                  >> Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long
                  >> way
                  >> off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                  >> reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                  >> like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
                  >>
                  >> Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                  >> connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                  >> replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
                  >> so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
                  >> by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get
                  >> on
                  >> board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
                  >> "the blues".
                  >>
                  >> Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                  >> tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                  >> with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
                  >> on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
                  >> what will not on the public stage.
                  >>
                  >> On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
                  >> proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
                  >> perhaps?
                  >>
                  >> All the best,
                  >>
                  >> Jock
                  >>
                  >> On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                  >>
                  >>> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                  >>> journalists
                  >>> and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
                  >>>
                  >>> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                  >>> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                  >>>
                  >>> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                  >>> idea of a
                  >>> new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
                  >>> the UK
                  >>> Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
                  >>>
                  >>> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and
                  >>> any
                  >>> group
                  >>> (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
                  >>> use
                  >>> "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
                  >>>
                  >>> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                  >>> collected by
                  >>> Local or Regional Government.
                  >> --
                  >> J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                  >> T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
                  >>
                • Harry Pollard
                  Jock, Very good musings! You use whatever terminology will go down well with the voters – so long as your defined concepts are clear. Way back in the 60’s
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 4, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jock,



                    Very good musings!



                    You use whatever terminology will go down well with the voters – so long as
                    your defined concepts are clear.



                    Way back in the 60’s or 70’s I modified Henry George’s definitions for
                    classroom purposes.



                    As you know, Land is the label given to Natural Resources, Labor is the name
                    given to human exertion, Wealth is the product of Labor working on Land.
                    Capital is Wealth used to produce more Wealth.



                    Unfortunately for analysis, “Land” in this context is too broad. We don’t
                    drill for oil, or dig for coal on Natural Resource – we drill and dig where
                    there is oil and coal. Labor produces on a specific location. He also lives
                    on a specific location. He goes to a specific location.



                    He may do all these things on Natural Resources (Land) – but that doesn’t
                    help much. Real estate people in the US have a saying. “The three most
                    important things about land is location, location, and location.” In my High
                    School courses, a question asks “What is the fourth most important thing
                    about Land?” If they don’t say location, they are in trouble!



                    I changed the defined concept that is labeled land to “A location with an
                    address is called Land.” This is particularly useful for, as you know, a
                    land tax doesn’t actually tax land – it taxes locations. This is true of
                    the broadcast spectrum which without doubt is part of natural resources. But
                    we can’t charge a fee for it. What we can do is cut the spectrum into chunks
                    and charge for the chunk called (say) Channel Four. The worth of a TV or
                    radio channel is directly related to the people it can reach. More people
                    means a higher rent.



                    We shouldn’t sell these chunks, we should rent, or lease, these locations on
                    the spectrum.



                    Yet again, for environmentalists, fish gather in particular areas of the
                    ocean – in particular locations. The UN should assert our common right to
                    the oceans and rent or lease these fishing grounds. Anything can be written
                    into a contract and we can limit catches to avoid destroying the resource.
                    (We should understand that when we limit catches, we’ll get less rent – but
                    that means we try to get as much rent as possible without harming the
                    location.)



                    Incidentally, properly management of the commons handles Garrett Hardin’s
                    “Tragedy”.



                    I’ll only make one more point. The Terrible Three used to haunt the soapbox
                    locations of London – including 6-7 hours on a Sunday at Marble Arch. I was
                    Chair of Londons Young Liberals, Roy Douglas and David Mills were members of
                    the Executive.



                    We had no trouble with crowds exceeding 500 in making our point.



                    “Land in the High Street is worth more than land in the backstreets. You
                    know why. It’s because there are more people in the High Street. You make
                    the land more valuable, but the value goes into the hands of people who
                    didn’t create it. We should take that back and use it instead of PAYE (Pay
                    As You Earn). If we tax the land values you create but don’t get, we won’t
                    need to tax you. Liberals will let you keep your wages.”



                    So we weren’t introducing a tax – we were replacing a bad one with a good
                    one.



                    Less sophisticated then? But it worked and we had no trouble answering
                    questions and getting agreement. It was a lot of fun, for as you’ve
                    gathered, we loved to talk (or shout).



                    Harry

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

                    Henry George School of Social Science

                    of Los Angeles

                    Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042

                    (818) 352-4141

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



                    _____

                    From: Jock Coats [mailto:jock.coats@...]
                    Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 5:22 PM
                    To: Land Café
                    Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?




                    Some (pretty random) thoughts:

                    The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                    existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
                    as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
                    progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
                    always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
                    particular?).

                    Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                    which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".

                    It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
                    that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
                    might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
                    "location".

                    Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long way
                    off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                    reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                    like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".

                    Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                    connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                    replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
                    so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
                    by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get on
                    board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
                    "the blues".

                    Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                    tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                    with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
                    on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
                    what will not on the public stage.

                    On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
                    proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
                    perhaps?

                    All the best,

                    Jock

                    On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:

                    > Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                    > journalists
                    > and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
                    >
                    > The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                    > advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                    >
                    > 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                    > idea of a
                    > new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
                    > the UK
                    > Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
                    >
                    > 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
                    > group
                    > (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
                    > use
                    > "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
                    >
                    > 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                    > collected by
                    > Local or Regional Government.
                    --
                    J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                    T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767









                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Dan Sullivan
                    The only relevant statistic, in terms of support or opposition from home owners, is whether they would pay more or less under a land value tax than under the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 4, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The only relevant statistic, in terms of support or opposition from
                      home owners, is whether they would pay more or less under a land
                      value tax than under the tax you propose to replace with land value
                      tax. Y'all really need that statistic.

                      Adding up all the land they own is beside the point, as they do not add
                      up their tax bills and pay in the aggregate. Some of them will own
                      land of very high value, but most will not. Some will pay more in a
                      shift from property tax, but most probably will not.

                      In the end, supposing how they will respond turns out to be waste of
                      time and mental effort. Start talking to them, and, more importantly,
                      listening to them, and you will quickly find out what works and what
                      doesn't. Pay attention to how they discuss other tax proposals, and you
                      will see how to discuss your own.

                      By the way, the statistics below make no mention of how much urban
                      and suburban land value is held by commercial and speculative
                      interests, but portrays the problem as if there were only the home
                      owners and the rural estates. The most valuable land of all is in the
                      central business districts, and that is where much of the tax burden
                      would end up under a shift to land value tax.

                      -ds

                      On 4 Feb 2005 at 2:12, Peter Gibb wrote:

                      >
                      >
                      > Peter Gibb here,
                      >
                      > Only 1243 landowners own three quarters of the privately-owned rural
                      > land in Scotland. This is a problem for many reasons (eg. development
                      > of fragile rural communities, establishment of renewable energy
                      > schemes, ecological restoration of devastated highland landscapes,
                      > cultural and class colonialism, etc.).
                      >
                      > But in land monopolist terms the aggregate worth of this landholding
                      > is only about £15b (although present circumstances means this may be
                      > rising). This is the value of the problem of the traditional
                      > 'landowning elite' in Scotland, expressed at the bottom line. Land
                      > reform measures are ensuring the breaking up of these private
                      > fiefdoms. So in Scotland it should be a problem on the wane: and
                      > viewed historically that seems to be what it is.
                      >
                      > On the other hand 2 million householders in Scotland own their own
                      > homes. In land monopolist terms, the value of this new 'landowning
                      > elite' (domestic only - putting aside commercial for the moment) is
                      > some £100b. A far greater portion of the value of the commons, and a
                      > far greater potential contribution to the public purse. (So share of
                      > area is not so important - let the 'elite' Duke of Sutherland take
                      > his thousand acres: I'll take that single acre on London's Oxford
                      > Street, thank you.)
                      >
                      > The most blatant downside of the developing urban situation is the
                      > 31% landless minority excluded from enjoyment of the community chest
                      > of the value of our common resources. Inheritence laws are ensuring
                      > that by the intergenerational transfer of landed privilege, though
                      > home ownership, a new urban landed class is forming and
                      > consolidating. Viewed historically this is manifesting as the great
                      > social issue of the age.
                      >
                      > But we must be clear that the problem of political change is rarely a
                      > big problem: it's much more usually the aggregate of a lot of little
                      > problems: lots of individual people with their lives and their ideas
                      > to change. And they are attached to what we would take away from
                      > them. We must be sensitive to this. We must express ourselves
                      > mindfully. The problem is 69% ourselves. The majority of us are
                      > members of the strongest interest group standing between us and a
                      > brighter economic future. Let the 1243 eat their cake.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Paul Metz here:
                      > >
                      > > Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%.
                      > > But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ?
                      > > I.e. how much land is not used for houses and owned by how many
                      > > others ? Probably that is relevant information for this case.
                      > >
                      > > _____________________________________________
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                      > > Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2005 14:16
                      > > To: Paul Metz
                      > > Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                      > > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Peter Gibb here.
                      > >
                      > > Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support
                      > > this reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among
                      > > Western economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their
                      > > homes. This interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century
                      > > "landowning elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of
                      > > choice for the modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest
                      > > group, in a rising or buoyant housing market, which you identify as
                      > > the "only" constituency - "a minority" - which would not be
                      > > supportive of this reform (although I can think of others). The
                      > > modern "landowning elite" is not a minority and cannot be
                      > > discounted: our reforms must appeal to it.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Peter Gibb
                      > > chief executive
                      > >
                      > > Henry George Foundation
                      > > 212 Piccadilly
                      > > London W1J 9HG
                      > > Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                      > > Mob 07974 933 213
                      > > gibb@...
                      > > www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                      > >
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >> Paul Metz here:
                      > >>
                      > >> A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
                      > >> from the ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually
                      > >> implemented in a number of European countries. The advocates of ETR
                      > >> have decided NOT to advocate "environmental taxation and spending",
                      > >> but stress the "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
                      > >>
                      > >> "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
                      > >>
                      > >> This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement
                      > >> - efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should
                      > >> be presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and
                      > >> inconsistent taxes, guaranteeing the same revenue at lower
                      > >> collection costs and/or with some positive effect on economic
                      > >> activities, income distribution, etc.
                      > >>
                      > >> In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
                      > >> finance infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the
                      > >> positive effect of such investments on the value of sites. But so
                      > >> do other public expenditures in schools, parks, etc. and city
                      > >> design, land use planning, zoning.
                      > >>
                      > >> For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
                      > >> revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
                      > >> taxation principle and avoids debating new spending. It would
                      > >> attract many more supporters from non-labour parties, as only the
                      > >> landowning elite will not support this reform, who even in
                      > >> conservative parties represent a minority.
                      > >>
                      > >> _____________________________________________
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >> Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
                      > >>
                      > >> The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                      > >> existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on
                      > >> "land" as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so
                      > >> called progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's
                      > >> going to always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour
                      > >> Movement in particular?).
                      > >>
                      > >> Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                      > >> which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use
                      > >> taxes".
                      > >>
                      > >> It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone
                      > >> says that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of
                      > >> "LVT". This might be confused further if we were using language
                      > >> that speaks of "location".
                      > >>
                      > >> Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long
                      > >> way off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                      > >> reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                      > >> like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
                      > >>
                      > >> Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                      > >> connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                      > >> replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have
                      > >> seen so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the
                      > >> moment by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we
                      > >> need to get on board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a
                      > >> vis the SVR) are "the blues".
                      > >>
                      > >> Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                      > >> tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                      > >> with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come
                      > >> from on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will
                      > >> sell and what will not on the public stage.
                      > >>
                      > >> On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's
                      > >> apparently proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a
                      > >> National Dividend perhaps?
                      > >>
                      > >> All the best,
                      > >>
                      > >> Jock
                      > >>
                      > >> On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                      > >>> journalists and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has
                      > >>> been discussed.
                      > >>>
                      > >>> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                      > >>> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                      > >>>
                      > >>> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                      > >>> idea of a new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years
                      > >>> we call for the UK Government to introduce "Location Benefit
                      > >>> Levy".
                      > >>>
                      > >>> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and
                      > >>> any group (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will
                      > >>> still be free to use "LVT" as and when they feel it is more
                      > >>> suitable than LBL.
                      > >>>
                      > >>> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                      > >>> collected by Local or Regional Government.
                      > >> --
                      > >> J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                      > >> T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
                      > >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > --------------------~--> Give underprivileged students the materials
                      > they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific
                      > classroom project.
                      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
                      > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
                      > >
                      >
                      > 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
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Terence Bendixson
                      Dan My thinking is in accord with yours. But if, as you say, most of the tax burden is going to end up in CBDs, to what extent will LVT therefore be an
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dan

                        My thinking is in accord with yours. But if, as you say, most of the tax
                        burden is going to end up in CBDs, to what extent will LVT therefore be an
                        economic force for the decentralisation of activity in metropolitan areas?

                        And then let us imagine that we are thoroughly modern and that we replace
                        fuel duty by variable road user charging as well, surely it too will bear
                        down most heavily on the places where traffic is thickest and most slow
                        moving, in other words the CBDs.

                        So then we will have two economic forces contributing to decentralisation.
                        Is that what LVT is all about?

                        Regards

                        Terence Bendixson, Secretary
                        Independent Transport Commission
                        University of Southampton
                        c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF
                        Tel 020 7352 3885




                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Dan Sullivan" <pimann@...>
                        To: "Peter Gibb" <petergibb@...>
                        Cc: "'Jock Coats'" <jock.coats@...>;
                        "'Land Café'" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 9:19 PM
                        Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?



                        The only relevant statistic, in terms of support or opposition from
                        home owners, is whether they would pay more or less under a land
                        value tax than under the tax you propose to replace with land value
                        tax. Y'all really need that statistic.

                        Adding up all the land they own is beside the point, as they do not add
                        up their tax bills and pay in the aggregate. Some of them will own
                        land of very high value, but most will not. Some will pay more in a
                        shift from property tax, but most probably will not.

                        In the end, supposing how they will respond turns out to be waste of
                        time and mental effort. Start talking to them, and, more importantly,
                        listening to them, and you will quickly find out what works and what
                        doesn't. Pay attention to how they discuss other tax proposals, and you
                        will see how to discuss your own.

                        By the way, the statistics below make no mention of how much urban
                        and suburban land value is held by commercial and speculative
                        interests, but portrays the problem as if there were only the home
                        owners and the rural estates. The most valuable land of all is in the
                        central business districts, and that is where much of the tax burden
                        would end up under a shift to land value tax.

                        -ds

                        On 4 Feb 2005 at 2:12, Peter Gibb wrote:

                        >
                        >
                        > Peter Gibb here,
                        >
                        > Only 1243 landowners own three quarters of the privately-owned rural
                        > land in Scotland. This is a problem for many reasons (eg. development
                        > of fragile rural communities, establishment of renewable energy
                        > schemes, ecological restoration of devastated highland landscapes,
                        > cultural and class colonialism, etc.).
                        >
                        > But in land monopolist terms the aggregate worth of this landholding
                        > is only about £15b (although present circumstances means this may be
                        > rising). This is the value of the problem of the traditional
                        > 'landowning elite' in Scotland, expressed at the bottom line. Land
                        > reform measures are ensuring the breaking up of these private
                        > fiefdoms. So in Scotland it should be a problem on the wane: and
                        > viewed historically that seems to be what it is.
                        >
                        > On the other hand 2 million householders in Scotland own their own
                        > homes. In land monopolist terms, the value of this new 'landowning
                        > elite' (domestic only - putting aside commercial for the moment) is
                        > some £100b. A far greater portion of the value of the commons, and a
                        > far greater potential contribution to the public purse. (So share of
                        > area is not so important - let the 'elite' Duke of Sutherland take
                        > his thousand acres: I'll take that single acre on London's Oxford
                        > Street, thank you.)
                        >
                        > The most blatant downside of the developing urban situation is the
                        > 31% landless minority excluded from enjoyment of the community chest
                        > of the value of our common resources. Inheritence laws are ensuring
                        > that by the intergenerational transfer of landed privilege, though
                        > home ownership, a new urban landed class is forming and
                        > consolidating. Viewed historically this is manifesting as the great
                        > social issue of the age.
                        >
                        > But we must be clear that the problem of political change is rarely a
                        > big problem: it's much more usually the aggregate of a lot of little
                        > problems: lots of individual people with their lives and their ideas
                        > to change. And they are attached to what we would take away from
                        > them. We must be sensitive to this. We must express ourselves
                        > mindfully. The problem is 69% ourselves. The majority of us are
                        > members of the strongest interest group standing between us and a
                        > brighter economic future. Let the 1243 eat their cake.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > > Paul Metz here:
                        > >
                        > > Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%.
                        > > But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ?
                        > > I.e. how much land is not used for houses and owned by how many
                        > > others ? Probably that is relevant information for this case.
                        > >
                        > > _____________________________________________
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                        > > Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2005 14:16
                        > > To: Paul Metz
                        > > Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                        > > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Peter Gibb here.
                        > >
                        > > Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support
                        > > this reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among
                        > > Western economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their
                        > > homes. This interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century
                        > > "landowning elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of
                        > > choice for the modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest
                        > > group, in a rising or buoyant housing market, which you identify as
                        > > the "only" constituency - "a minority" - which would not be
                        > > supportive of this reform (although I can think of others). The
                        > > modern "landowning elite" is not a minority and cannot be
                        > > discounted: our reforms must appeal to it.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Peter Gibb
                        > > chief executive
                        > >
                        > > Henry George Foundation
                        > > 212 Piccadilly
                        > > London W1J 9HG
                        > > Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                        > > Mob 07974 933 213
                        > > gibb@...
                        > > www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                        > >
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >> Paul Metz here:
                        > >>
                        > >> A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
                        > >> from the ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually
                        > >> implemented in a number of European countries. The advocates of ETR
                        > >> have decided NOT to advocate "environmental taxation and spending",
                        > >> but stress the "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
                        > >>
                        > >> "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
                        > >>
                        > >> This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement
                        > >> - efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should
                        > >> be presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and
                        > >> inconsistent taxes, guaranteeing the same revenue at lower
                        > >> collection costs and/or with some positive effect on economic
                        > >> activities, income distribution, etc.
                        > >>
                        > >> In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
                        > >> finance infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the
                        > >> positive effect of such investments on the value of sites. But so
                        > >> do other public expenditures in schools, parks, etc. and city
                        > >> design, land use planning, zoning.
                        > >>
                        > >> For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
                        > >> revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
                        > >> taxation principle and avoids debating new spending. It would
                        > >> attract many more supporters from non-labour parties, as only the
                        > >> landowning elite will not support this reform, who even in
                        > >> conservative parties represent a minority.
                        > >>
                        > >> _____________________________________________
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >> Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
                        > >>
                        > >> The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                        > >> existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on
                        > >> "land" as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so
                        > >> called progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's
                        > >> going to always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour
                        > >> Movement in particular?).
                        > >>
                        > >> Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                        > >> which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use
                        > >> taxes".
                        > >>
                        > >> It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone
                        > >> says that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of
                        > >> "LVT". This might be confused further if we were using language
                        > >> that speaks of "location".
                        > >>
                        > >> Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long
                        > >> way off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                        > >> reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                        > >> like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
                        > >>
                        > >> Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                        > >> connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                        > >> replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have
                        > >> seen so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the
                        > >> moment by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we
                        > >> need to get on board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a
                        > >> vis the SVR) are "the blues".
                        > >>
                        > >> Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                        > >> tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                        > >> with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come
                        > >> from on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will
                        > >> sell and what will not on the public stage.
                        > >>
                        > >> On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's
                        > >> apparently proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a
                        > >> National Dividend perhaps?
                        > >>
                        > >> All the best,
                        > >>
                        > >> Jock
                        > >>
                        > >> On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                        > >>
                        > >>> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                        > >>> journalists and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has
                        > >>> been discussed.
                        > >>>
                        > >>> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                        > >>> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                        > >>>
                        > >>> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                        > >>> idea of a new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years
                        > >>> we call for the UK Government to introduce "Location Benefit
                        > >>> Levy".
                        > >>>
                        > >>> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and
                        > >>> any group (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will
                        > >>> still be free to use "LVT" as and when they feel it is more
                        > >>> suitable than LBL.
                        > >>>
                        > >>> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                        > >>> collected by Local or Regional Government.
                        > >> --
                        > >> J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                        > >> T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
                        > >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        > --------------------~--> Give underprivileged students the materials
                        > they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific
                        > classroom project.
                        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/J1EolB/TM
                        > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-
                        > >
                        >
                        > 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
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >






                        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
                      • Terence Bendixson
                        Peter To what extent was Margaret Thatcher s right to buy Council houses successful in spreading home ownership to the previously landless? Is there any moral
                        Message 11 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Peter

                          To what extent was Margaret Thatcher's right to buy Council houses
                          successful in spreading home ownership to the previously landless?

                          Is there any moral there? Can some other instrument be devised to further
                          expand ownership?

                          Terence Bendixson


                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Peter Gibb" <petergibb@...>
                          To: "Paul Metz" <metz@...>
                          Cc: "'Jock Coats'" <jock.coats@...>;
                          "'Land Café'" <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:12 AM
                          Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?




                          Peter Gibb here,

                          Only 1243 landowners own three quarters of the privately-owned rural land
                          in Scotland. This is a problem for many reasons (eg. development of fragile
                          rural communities, establishment of renewable energy schemes, ecological
                          restoration of devastated highland landscapes, cultural and class
                          colonialism, etc.).

                          But in land monopolist terms the aggregate worth of this landholding is
                          only about £15b (although present circumstances means this may be rising).
                          This is the value of the problem of the traditional 'landowning elite' in
                          Scotland, expressed at the bottom line. Land reform measures are ensuring
                          the breaking up of these private fiefdoms. So in Scotland it should be a
                          problem on the wane: and viewed historically that seems to be what it is.

                          On the other hand 2 million householders in Scotland own their own homes.
                          In land monopolist terms, the value of this new 'landowning elite'
                          (domestic only - putting aside commercial for the moment) is some £100b. A
                          far greater portion of the value of the commons, and a far greater
                          potential contribution to the public purse. (So share of area is not so
                          important - let the 'elite' Duke of Sutherland take his thousand acres:
                          I'll take that single acre on London's Oxford Street, thank you.)

                          The most blatant downside of the developing urban situation is the 31%
                          landless minority excluded from enjoyment of the community chest of the
                          value of our common resources. Inheritence laws are ensuring that by the
                          intergenerational transfer of landed privilege, though home ownership, a
                          new urban landed class is forming and consolidating. Viewed historically
                          this is manifesting as the great social issue of the age.

                          But we must be clear that the problem of political change is rarely a big
                          problem: it's much more usually the aggregate of a lot of little problems:
                          lots of individual people with their lives and their ideas to change. And
                          they are attached to what we would take away from them. We must be
                          sensitive to this. We must express ourselves mindfully. The problem is 69%
                          ourselves. The majority of us are members of the strongest interest group
                          standing between us and a brighter economic future. Let the 1243 eat their
                          cake.



                          On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Paul Metz wrote:

                          >
                          > Paul Metz here:
                          >
                          > Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%.
                          > But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ?
                          > I.e. how much land is not used for houses and owned by how many others
                          > ?
                          > Probably that is relevant information for this case.
                          >
                          > _____________________________________________
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                          > Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2005 14:16
                          > To: Paul Metz
                          > Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                          > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?
                          >
                          >
                          > Peter Gibb here.
                          >
                          > Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support this
                          > reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
                          > economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their homes. This
                          > interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century "landowning
                          > elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of choice for the
                          > modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest group, in a rising
                          > or buoyant housing market, which you identify as the "only"
                          > constituency - "a minority" - which would not be supportive of this
                          > reform (although I can think of others). The modern "landowning elite"
                          > is not a minority and cannot be discounted: our reforms must appeal to
                          > it.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Peter Gibb
                          > chief executive
                          >
                          > Henry George Foundation
                          > 212 Piccadilly
                          > London W1J 9HG
                          > Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                          > Mob 07974 933 213
                          > gibb@...
                          > www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                          >
                          >>
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> Paul Metz here:
                          >>
                          >> A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
                          >> from the
                          >> ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually implemented in
                          >> a
                          >> number of European countries. The advocates of ETR have decided NOT to
                          >> advocate "environmental taxation and spending", but stress the
                          >> "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
                          >>
                          >> "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
                          >>
                          >> This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement -
                          >> efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should be
                          >> presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and inconsistent
                          >> taxes,
                          >> guaranteeing the same revenue at lower collection costs and/or with
                          >> some
                          >> positive effect on economic activities, income distribution, etc.
                          >>
                          >> In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
                          >> finance
                          >> infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the positive effect
                          >> of
                          >> such investments on the value of sites. But so do other public
                          >> expenditures
                          >> in schools, parks, etc. and city design, land use planning, zoning.
                          >>
                          >> For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
                          >> revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
                          >> taxation
                          >> principle and avoids debating new spending. It would attract many more
                          >> supporters from non-labour parties, as only the landowning elite will
                          >> not
                          >> support this reform, who even in conservative parties represent a
                          >> minority.
                          >>
                          >> _____________________________________________
                          >>
                          >>
                          >> Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
                          >>
                          >> The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                          >> existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
                          >> as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
                          >> progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
                          >> always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
                          >> particular?).
                          >>
                          >> Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                          >> which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".
                          >>
                          >> It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
                          >> that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
                          >> might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
                          >> "location".
                          >>
                          >> Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long
                          >> way
                          >> off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                          >> reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                          >> like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
                          >>
                          >> Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                          >> connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                          >> replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
                          >> so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
                          >> by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get
                          >> on
                          >> board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
                          >> "the blues".
                          >>
                          >> Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                          >> tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                          >> with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
                          >> on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
                          >> what will not on the public stage.
                          >>
                          >> On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
                          >> proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
                          >> perhaps?
                          >>
                          >> All the best,
                          >>
                          >> Jock
                          >>
                          >> On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                          >>
                          >>> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                          >>> journalists
                          >>> and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
                          >>>
                          >>> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                          >>> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                          >>>
                          >>> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                          >>> idea of a
                          >>> new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
                          >>> the UK
                          >>> Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
                          >>>
                          >>> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and
                          >>> any
                          >>> group
                          >>> (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
                          >>> use
                          >>> "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
                          >>>
                          >>> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                          >>> collected by
                          >>> Local or Regional Government.
                          >> --
                          >> J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                          >> T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
                          >>






                          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
                        • Dan Sullivan
                          ... LVT will not discourage development of central business districts, because it is not a tax on development, but on the value of land being held. It is most
                          Message 12 of 16 , Feb 6, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 6 Feb 2005 at 11:11, Terence Bendixson wrote:

                            > My thinking is in accord with yours. But if, as you say, most of the
                            > tax burden is going to end up in CBDs, to what extent will LVT
                            > therefore be an economic force for the decentralisation of activity in
                            > metropolitan areas?

                            LVT will not discourage development of central business districts,
                            because it is not a tax on development, but on the value of land being
                            held. It is most burdensome to those who are holding land in an
                            underdeveloped state, and favors those who develop their land the
                            most. Moreover, land value tax would replace taxes on production
                            and exchange. Exchange, to a considerable extent, is a highly urban
                            activity. In an economy where exchange is unfettered, the importance
                            (and value) of access to core market areas would be increased. Over
                            the past century, the country with the highest share of its revenue
                            coming from land values has been (and still is) Hong Kong. It is the
                            best example of how land values affect growth patterns.

                            > And then let us imagine that we are thoroughly modern and that we
                            > replace fuel duty by variable road user charging as well, surely it
                            > too will bear down most heavily on the places where traffic is
                            > thickest and most slow moving, in other words the CBDs.

                            I don't know that such a replacement is necessary. It might be my
                            American bias, but I don't like the idea of the government (or anyone)
                            monitoring my travels.

                            I do think there should be substantial royalties on oil extraction, as
                            there are in Norway and that we should have much higher taxes on
                            gasoline, however. Some of it would be in the form of a pollution tax,
                            and that tax should be higher in urban areas. If people buy their
                            gasoline outside those areas and sometimes drive to the city, so be it.
                            Really, it is the urbanites who should give up their cars first, not those
                            who merely come into town. For that reason, among others, I was not
                            happy with the idea of charging non-Londoners for bringing vehicles
                            into London. If anything, the charge should be placed on those who
                            keep vehicles in the city year-round.

                            The focus for mass transit, on the other hand, should not be to extend
                            it outwards as much as to improve it in core areas. That way the
                            urbanites would so seldom need powered vehicles that they would not
                            bother owning them. They would simply rent cars for extended travel
                            and have bulky items delivered. Here in the U.S., especially, we
                            squander mass-transit money in suburbs where it is not used and
                            accommodate automobiles in the city where they are most
                            troublesome. Eliminating these counter-productive policies should
                            come well ahead of any proactive efforts to inhibit congestion.

                            > So then we will have two economic forces contributing to
                            > decentralisation. Is that what LVT is all about?

                            To hard-core LVT supporters it is about principles of justice, but I
                            prefer to focus on your interests as expressed here. I think the
                            problems of travel do not dictate that people either live packed into
                            big cities or dispersed throughout endless suburbia, but merely that
                            the typical person is able to live close to where he works and does his
                            routine shopping. That would include cities, but it would also include
                            small towns.

                            The type of development LVT would discourage the most would be
                            the residential communities with impractically large lot sizes. Home
                            buyers would behave a bit more like renters, in that they would take
                            up only as much land as they actually valued. There would be far
                            more public parks for kids to play in, but fewer big yards to mow.

                            As a kid, I grew up in a house that was on the largest lot in a new
                            suburban plan. My father, a plumbing contractor, learned early about
                            this subdivision and secured this lot from the developer. Because
                            there were very few parks and playgrounds, the neighbor kids came to
                            play softball in my back yard, which, I suppose, afforded me more
                            friends than I would have secured on my own, and perhaps more
                            resentment as well, although I didn't notice it. There was also a small
                            patch of woods on our property where I could be alone, although
                            others did come and play in those woods. In any case, without all the
                            yards, that suburb could easily have fit twice as many houses and still
                            had so much room for parks, playgrounds and parklets that there
                            would have been no shortage of places for playing, entertaining
                            friends and relatives, and just being alone.

                            The other thing I would like to denounce in this context is zoning.
                            Density-zoning consistently allocates land to smaller numbers of more
                            affluent users, and use-zoning makes it artificially difficult for people
                            to live close to where they work and shop. I see zoning as a pretext to
                            keep land prices high, not only by exacerbating a shortage of land, but
                            by making communities more "exclusive" than they would have been
                            had market forces been given free play.

                            I guess, to tie things back to the earlier discussion, the increased
                            burden on the the central business district would be the direct tax
                            *incidence* on urban land. The land value of CBDs would not fall,
                            however, if the tax were phased in gradually so the value
                            enhancements of infill development could offset the value loss due to
                            the the land value tax.

                            It is rural land that would fall in price, but that is not a particular
                            problem to true farmers who are in it to sell produce and not to make
                            a killing in the market. The real problem is for owners of large
                            residential estates, especially if the situation of the current
                            improvements makes it difficult to accommodate additional
                            improvements. Coming back to our suburb, each house was placed
                            squarely between the lot lines, so that new, infill houses would pretty
                            much have to straddle the existing lots.

                            I expect that my childhood suburb, which is an endless monotony of
                            housing without even the interruption of convenience stores, which is
                            terribly ill-suited for mass transit, and which is laid out in such a way
                            as to resist rational modification, will be one of the big losers when
                            the inevitable oil shortage puts an end to cheap travel. Those who can
                            afford to will move into newer, more rational communities, and
                            suburbs like this, which were designed for the middle class, will,
                            ironically, become populated with poor people. At least then the
                            density-zoning limits will probably be withdrawn.
                          • Paul Metz
                            Paul Metz here again: Still, I believe that fairly sharing the landrent is out of sight. One more question: how does the Duke of Sutherland relate to the Duke
                            Message 13 of 16 , Feb 8, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Paul Metz here again:

                              Still, I believe that fairly sharing the landrent is out of sight.
                              One more question: how does the Duke of Sutherland relate to the
                              Duke of Westminster. i.e. feudal landproperties in cities ?

                              And a correction on Peter's final 'advice': The 1243 eat YOUR cake
                              - and in The Netherlands mine.

                              _____________________________________________


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                              Sent: vrijdag 4 februari 2005 3:13
                              To: Paul Metz
                              Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                              Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?

                              Peter Gibb here,

                              Only 1243 landowners own three quarters of the privately-owned rural
                              land in Scotland. This is a problem for many reasons (eg. development
                              of fragile rural communities, establishment of renewable energy
                              schemes, ecological restoration of devastated highland landscapes,
                              cultural and class colonialism, etc.). But in land monopolist terms
                              the aggregate worth of this landholding is only about £15b (although
                              present circumstances means this may be rising). This is the value of
                              the problem of the traditional 'landowning elite' in Scotland,
                              expressed at the bottom line. Land reform measures are ensuring the
                              breaking up of these private fiefdoms. So in scotland it should be a
                              problem on the wane: and viewed historically that seems to be what it
                              is. On the other hand 2 million householders in Scotland own their own
                              homes. In land monopolist terms, the value of this new 'landowning
                              elite' (domestic only - putting aside commercial for the moment) is
                              some £100b. A far greater portion of the value of the commons, and a
                              far greater potential contribution to the public purse. (So share of
                              area is not so important - let the 'elite' Duke of Sutherland take his
                              thousand acres: I'll take that single acre on London's Oxford Street,
                              thank you.) The most blatant downside of the developing urban situation
                              is the 31% landless minority excluded from enjoyment of the community
                              chest of the value of our common resources. Inheritence laws are
                              ensuring that by the intergenerational transfer of landed privilege,
                              though home ownership, a new urban landed class is forming and
                              consolidating. Viewed historically this is manifesting as the great
                              social issue of the age. But we must be clear that the problem of
                              political change is rarely a big problem: it's much more usually the
                              aggregate of a lot of little problems: lots of individual people with
                              their lives and their ideas to change. And they are attached to what we
                              would take away from them. We must be sensitive to this. We must
                              express ourselves mindfully. The problem is 69% ourselves. The majority
                              of us are members of the strongest interest group standing between us
                              and a brighter economic future. Let the 1243 eat their cake.


                              On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Paul Metz wrote:

                              >
                              > Paul Metz here:
                              >
                              > Peter Gibb is undoubtedly right with the 69%.
                              > But which share of the total surface of the UK does this represent ?
                              > I.e. how much land is not used for houses and owned by how many others
                              > ?
                              > Probably that is relevant information for this case.
                              >
                              > _____________________________________________
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: Peter Gibb [mailto:petergibb@...]
                              > Sent: donderdag 3 februari 2005 14:16
                              > To: Paul Metz
                              > Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                              > Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?
                              >
                              >
                              > Peter Gibb here.
                              >
                              > Paul Metz writes that "only the landowning elite will not support this
                              > reform [lvt]". But in the UK - which is not exceptional among Western
                              > economies - 69% of households are owner occupiers of their homes. This
                              > interest group is in fact the new twenty-first century "landowning
                              > elite". Urban locational advantage is the subject of choice for the
                              > modern-day resource monopolist. This is the interest group, in a rising
                              > or buoyant housing market, which you identify as the "only"
                              > constituency - "a minority" - which would not be supportive of this
                              > reform (although I can think of others). The modern "landowning elite"
                              > is not a minority and cannot be discounted: our reforms must appeal to
                              > it.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Peter Gibb
                              > chief executive
                              >
                              > Henry George Foundation
                              > 212 Piccadilly
                              > London W1J 9HG
                              > Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                              > Mob 07974 933 213
                              > gibb@...
                              > www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 01:04 PM, Paul Metz wrote:
                              >
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> Paul Metz here:
                              >>
                              >> A (new) tax is never popular. Fot the promotion of LVT we can learn
                              >> from the
                              >> ETR, the ecological tax reform as it is being gradually implemented in
                              >> a
                              >> number of European countries. The advocates of ETR have decided NOT to
                              >> advocate "environmental taxation and spending", but stress the
                              >> "revenue-neutral REFORM of the tax system".
                              >>
                              >> "Not more and higher, but better taxes".
                              >>
                              >> This same strategy can be followed to promote LVT as an improvement -
                              >> efficiency, fairness - of the tax structure. Then the LVT should be
                              >> presented as a substitute for existing, unpopular and inconsistent
                              >> taxes,
                              >> guaranteeing the same revenue at lower collection costs and/or with
                              >> some
                              >> positive effect on economic activities, income distribution, etc.
                              >>
                              >> In this approach the debate should be disconnected from new ways to
                              >> finance
                              >> infrastructure investments, although I am aware of the positive effect
                              >> of
                              >> such investments on the value of sites. But so do other public
                              >> expenditures
                              >> in schools, parks, etc. and city design, land use planning, zoning.
                              >>
                              >> For this reason I believe it would be productive to focus on the
                              >> revenue-neutral tax reform approach to sell LVT. It addresses the
                              >> taxation
                              >> principle and avoids debating new spending. It would attract many more
                              >> supporters from non-labour parties, as only the landowning elite will
                              >> not
                              >> support this reform, who even in conservative parties represent a
                              >> minority.
                              >>
                              >> _____________________________________________
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> Some (pretty random) thoughts from Jock Coats:
                              >>
                              >> The ultimate aim (of all relevant groups?) would be to replace all
                              >> existing taxes on goods, capital flows and income with a tax on "land"
                              >> as defined by Henry George, yes? Or is the loss of so called
                              >> progressive (particularly income) taxation something that's going to
                              >> always be very difficult to sell to some (the Labour Movement in
                              >> particular?).
                              >>
                              >> Now sure, that will in fact mean a series of different taxes all of
                              >> which come under the sort of general banner of "resource use taxes".
                              >>
                              >> It seems to me already quite confusing when, for example, someone says
                              >> that the 3G telecoms bandwidth auction was an example of "LVT". This
                              >> might be confused further if we were using language that speaks of
                              >> "location".
                              >>
                              >> Or maybe you are suggesting that because the ultimate aim is a long
                              >> way
                              >> off we use different terms in different stages. Which seems
                              >> reasonable. Except that we are to go on calling "stage one" if you
                              >> like - the campaign for a local LVT - "Site Value Rating".
                              >>
                              >> Personally, I like the idea of "Single Tax". It has the historical
                              >> connections. It allows us to explain that this is proposed as a
                              >> replacement, not an additional tax. Given that from what I have seen
                              >> so far of the movement in the UK it is mainly supported at the moment
                              >> by a sort of green, red and gold coalition, the group we need to get
                              >> on
                              >> board (perhaps especially for shire districts vis a vis the SVR) are
                              >> "the blues".
                              >>
                              >> Anyhow, don't let me put a spanner in the works. This is just my
                              >> tuppence worth. And I suppose it comes from the perspective of one
                              >> with "Tories wherever you look". I understand where you've come from
                              >> on this - MORI and the media must have a handle on what will sell and
                              >> what will not on the public stage.
                              >>
                              >> On a separate note, this Citizens' Pension Alan Johnson's apparently
                              >> proposing sounds good, doesn't it? A step towards a National Dividend
                              >> perhaps?
                              >>
                              >> All the best,
                              >>
                              >> Jock
                              >>
                              >> On 30 Jan 2005, at 12:51, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                              >>
                              >>> Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                              >>> journalists
                              >>> and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
                              >>>
                              >>> The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                              >>> advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                              >>>
                              >>> 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                              >>> idea of a
                              >>> new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
                              >>> the UK
                              >>> Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
                              >>>
                              >>> 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and
                              >>> any
                              >>> group
                              >>> (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
                              >>> use
                              >>> "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
                              >>>
                              >>> 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                              >>> collected by
                              >>> Local or Regional Government.
                              >> --
                              >> J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
                              >> T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769 695767
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> 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
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> 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
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > 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
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Harry Pollard
                              Terry, Good reforms don’t so much repair a problem as stimulate good activities. A land value tax does just that. My niece in Wales got a Thatcher council
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 10, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Terry,



                                Good reforms don’t so much repair a problem as stimulate good activities.



                                A land value tax does just that.



                                My niece in Wales got a Thatcher council house. She is a teacher, he is a
                                social worker, so they are not exactly rolling in cash.



                                Yet, they have just added a room and enlarged a couple of others, something
                                that would never be done in a rented council house.



                                The Thatcher program was good. What a pity she never really understood the
                                free market.



                                Harry



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

                                Henry George School of Social Science

                                of Los Angeles

                                Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042

                                (818) 352-4141

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



                                _____

                                From: Terence Bendixson [mailto:t.bendixson@...]
                                Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 4:06 AM
                                To: Paul Metz; Peter Gibb
                                Cc: 'Jock Coats'; 'Land Café'
                                Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?




                                Peter

                                To what extent was Margaret Thatcher's right to buy Council houses
                                successful in spreading home ownership to the previously landless?

                                Is there any moral there? Can some other instrument be devised to further
                                expand ownership?

                                Terence Bendixson











                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Tony Vickers
                                Dear Dave & Peter, ALTER have had an email exchange among our committee on this name change business. The majority of us seem not to want to spend much time on
                                Message 15 of 16 , Mar 14, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Dave & Peter,

                                  ALTER have had an email exchange among our committee on this name change
                                  business. The majority of us seem not to want to spend much time on the
                                  subject, although we understand the concerns of Labour Land Campaign and
                                  don't mind at all if others choose to try LBL.

                                  If you remember the 1980s (I've just read "The Strange Rebirth of Liberal
                                  England" by David Walter and been reminded how our Party went from 32% to 4%
                                  in the opinion polls while changing its name three times!!) you'll realise
                                  where we're coming from. And Labour has changed quite successfully without
                                  messing about with names.......

                                  Let me know when a meeting is planned and I'll see if any of us want to come
                                  along.

                                  Cllr Tony Vickers
                                  Chair, Lib Dems ALTER
                                  (Action on Land-value Taxation & Economic Reform)
                                  www.libdemsalter.org.uk
                                  01635 230046 / 0795 0202640
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Peter Gibb" <gibb@...>
                                  To: "Wetzel Dave" <davewetzel@...>
                                  Cc: "'Fred Harrison'" <metaman@...>; <randj.douglas@...>;
                                  "'Henry Law'" <henry_bn@...>; "'Tony V i c k e r s (TV)'"
                                  <tonyvickers@...>; "'Ashis Choudhury (Secretary, The Professional
                                  Land Reform Group) ac1'" <AChoudh1@...>; "'Cllr John Pincham (Surrey CC)
                                  (JP)'" <johnpincham@...>; "'Carol Wilcox (Sec Labour Land Campaign;
                                  c1 cw1 [LC]'" <wilcox@...>; "'Antonia Swinson'" <Antswin@...>;
                                  <Ian.Mason@...>; "'Land Café ( lc1) '"
                                  <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>; "'Dave Reed (V-Chair LLC); [LC]; dr1 d1'
                                  d.triggs@..." <dbcreed@...>
                                  Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:39 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [LandCafe] "Land Value TAX" or "Location Benefit Levy"?


                                  > Dear Dave,
                                  >
                                  > The Henry George Foundation of Great Britain would be pleased to
                                  > accept, without prejudice, your invitation to participate in an LBL
                                  > Discussion Group. We wish to send three delegates if we may: David
                                  > Triggs our Chairman, Jerry Stovin from our Council of Management, and
                                  > myself. Please let us know the arrangements once they have been made.
                                  >
                                  > Peter Gibb
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Peter Gibb
                                  > chief executive
                                  >
                                  > Henry George Foundation
                                  > 212 Piccadilly
                                  > London W1J 9HG
                                  > Tel 020 7377 8885 Fax 020 7377 8686
                                  > Mob 07974 933 213
                                  > gibb@...
                                  > www.HenryGeorgeFoundation.org
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > On Sunday, January 30, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Arising from recent meetings between our Chair, Dave Wetzel with
                                  > > journalists
                                  > > and the MORI organisation where the title "LVT" has been discussed.
                                  > >
                                  > > The Labour Land Campaign has agreed to call a meeting of UK groups
                                  > > advocating LVT to discuss the following proposition.
                                  > >
                                  > > 1. Because many people (consciously or sub-consciously) oppose the
                                  > > idea of a
                                  > > new "TAX" we agree that for a period of the next 3 years we call for
                                  > > the UK
                                  > > Government to introduce "Location Benefit Levy".
                                  > >
                                  > > 2. That no decision can be binding on all parties at all times and any
                                  > > group
                                  > > (or indeed individuals) party to this agreement will still be free to
                                  > > use
                                  > > "LVT" as and when they feel it is more suitable than LBL.
                                  > >
                                  > > 3. "Site Value Rating" will continue to be the name for LVT/LBL
                                  > > collected by
                                  > > Local or Regional Government.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > We suggest that no more than two people represent each organisation.
                                  > > That this "LBL Discussion Group" will not make a decision but discuss
                                  > > the
                                  > > proposition and if there is a consensus for change we report back to
                                  > > our
                                  > > respective bodies for further discussion.
                                  > > The "LBL Discussion Group" will finally meet again, consider all
                                  > > representations, and make a decision which will not be binding on any
                                  > > participating group or individuals.
                                  > >
                                  > > Can you please discuss this idea with your colleagues and reply
                                  > > whether in
                                  > > principle you are prepared to participate in such a discussion.
                                  > >
                                  > > Dave
                                  > > Dave Wetzel;
                                  > > Chair: Labour Land Campaign.
                                  > > Tel: 020 7941 4200
                                  > > Intl Tel: +44 207 941 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.
                                  > > ***********************************************************************
                                  > > ************
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 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.