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

RE: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies

Expand Messages
  • Dan Sullivan
    I had meant to post this reply to the list yesterday, but replied to sender. It goes a bit further than Mark Porthouse s post, to which I will respond
    Message 1 of 11 , May 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I had meant to post this reply to the list yesterday, but replied to
      sender. It goes a bit further than Mark Porthouse's post, to which I
      will respond presently.

      It strikes me that what land is held open in the public interest ought to
      be held by the public. That is, Chelsea should buy the park in question
      and truly insure its continuance. The fact of the matter is that *any*
      financial crunch this hospital faces could lead to their selling of this
      park, whether or not the park itself is taxed.

      This is true of any land that is held out of use for public benefit. The
      public should control its own lands and not rely on the "noblesse
      oblige" of the privileged. Conversely, it should not arbitrarily interfere
      with people's use of their own lands by zoning that use away. Either it
      is their land or the public's land.

      Land value tax will cost the average citizen less than the council
      property tax costs, and will cost *far* less than a local income tax
      would cost. "After saving so much money, Chelsea citizens could
      easily afford a small increase so they could make a fair offer on the
      parcel in question and turn it into a public park.

      The hospital, of course, would like to have it both ways -- get a tax
      break for holding the park in its current state and then sell it for
      development when the time is "ripe" for doing so. This is called
      having their cake and eating yours, too.

      -ds

      On 28 May 2005 at 12:53, Terence Bendixson wrote:

      > As the Hon Sec Planning of the Chelsea Society (among
      > other things) I am constantly examining local development
      > applications in the light of the Mayor's Plan for London
      > and the Borough Council's Unitary Development Plan. As
      > drafted and enforced these plans, for instance, make it
      > possible for the Royal Hospital Chelsea, with its
      > extensive park to pay a Council Tax that grossly
      > undervalues its site. If it was taxed, through LVT, at a
      > value that represented the development value of the park,
      > the Hospital would probably have to sell off most of the
      > park for development. (It might have to close down
      > altogether because of the very generous spaces that are
      > present in Sir Christopher Wren palatial buildings.)
      > Pensioners and residents who enjoy the 'lung', the amenity
      > or however one might describe it, of the park (and the
      > historic architecture of the pensioners; quarters) would
      > then lose assets and inner city living would be by that
      > much diminished.
    • Harry Pollard
      Ed and Mark, All land should get a Rent charge. One can imagine a group of wealthy people building around a giant park without paying for it while poorer
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Ed and Mark,



        All land should get a Rent charge. One can imagine a group
        of wealthy people building around a giant park without
        paying for it while poorer people are paying their full
        Rent.



        Government buildings should pay Rent too. When they realize
        their budgets are going into Rent rather than salaries, they
        might be inclined to move to lower Rent areas where they are
        closer to the people they are supposed to be serving.



        Ed, we don’t need devices to find Rents.



        With experienced appraisers and an effective – and widely
        published Rent map – we can become very accurate at properly
        appraising Rents. The major advantage of Rent maps is that
        adjacent Rents are like each other – they may be identical –
        as in the street valuation method.



        You’ll recall that around the first World War, the Danish
        Assessors mapped the Rents of a large area. They next mapped
        the whole country. This was not to collect revenue – it was
        practice. This gave them the training necessary to an
        accurate appraisal for taxing purposes.



        Each time they did an appraisal from thereon – they got
        better. (And were checked by the country-wide publication of
        their results.)



        Harry



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

        Henry George School of Social Science

        of Los Angeles

        Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042

        818 352-4141

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





        _____

        From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ed Dodson
        Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:05 AM
        To: Land Café
        Cc: Mark Porthouse
        Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies



        Ed Dodson responding...
        Mark Porthouse wrote (5/29):


        There was an interesting thread last December that touched
        on this issue of
        LVT on open spaces in urban areas titled 'Ownership
        transfer'.

        The conclusion that I took from that was that either:

        a) Zoning of that land for use as an open space (by urban
        planning) made the
        'rental value' of the land zero and thus made the LVT zero.

        or

        b) (without zoning) If the local community (the users) see a
        value in the
        land being an open space then they should be able to place a
        suitable market
        value on that space and be prepared to pay for it out of
        community funds
        (tax income for the local council). This depends on the
        argument that the
        value of open spaces can be measured economically - perhaps
        in a community
        where LVT is charged you are much more likely to see a
        social fairness that
        means the social benefits *can* be measured economically,
        unlike in a less
        egalitarian economic community where distortions in the
        market (deriving
        from the power of land ownership) are more likely to ensure
        that social
        benefits cannot be quantified economically.

        Ed Dodson here:
        The market dynamics that drive land value are fairly
        straightforward. The
        rental value of a location will tend to be higher absent
        restrictions on
        use, inasmuch as restrictions impose costs on the potential
        user.

        Zoning, as a planning tool, certainly influences rental
        values (which, in
        turn, influences the capitalization of such values into
        sought after selling
        prices).

        An effective strategy communities might pursue to obtain
        accurate,
        up-to-date market data on land rental values is to maintain
        a percentage of
        land in community ownership but offered to private users
        under a leasehold
        arrangement. The leasehold period can be of a length
        sufficient to guarantee
        secure use of improvements made to the location (e.g., 20-30
        years) but with
        provisions for periodic adjustment in annual rental charges
        based on market
        location rents.







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Harry Pollard
        Dan, The privileged you mention are so by virtue of their legal right to take Rent. If 100% of the Rent is collected the privilege is gone. Incidentally,
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dan,



          The "privileged" you mention are so by virtue of their legal
          right to take Rent.



          If 100% of the Rent is collected the "privilege" is gone.



          Incidentally, small neighborhood parks seem to be better
          than the set-pieces like Central Park and Hyde Park. They
          produce friendly groupings where people talk to each other.



          Harry

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

          Henry George School of Social Science

          of Los Angeles

          Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042

          818 352-4141

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





          _____

          From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Sullivan
          Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:39 AM
          To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies



          I had meant to post this reply to the list yesterday, but
          replied to
          sender. It goes a bit further than Mark Porthouse's post, to
          which I
          will respond presently.

          It strikes me that what land is held open in the public
          interest ought to
          be held by the public. That is, Chelsea should buy the park
          in question
          and truly insure its continuance. The fact of the matter is
          that *any*
          financial crunch this hospital faces could lead to their
          selling of this
          park, whether or not the park itself is taxed.

          This is true of any land that is held out of use for public
          benefit. The
          public should control its own lands and not rely on the
          "noblesse
          oblige" of the privileged. Conversely, it should not
          arbitrarily interfere
          with people's use of their own lands by zoning that use
          away. Either it
          is their land or the public's land.

          Land value tax will cost the average citizen less than the
          council
          property tax costs, and will cost *far* less than a local
          income tax
          would cost. "After saving so much money, Chelsea citizens
          could
          easily afford a small increase so they could make a fair
          offer on the
          parcel in question and turn it into a public park.

          The hospital, of course, would like to have it both ways --
          get a tax
          break for holding the park in its current state and then
          sell it for
          development when the time is "ripe" for doing so. This is
          called
          having their cake and eating yours, too.

          -ds

          On 28 May 2005 at 12:53, Terence Bendixson wrote:

          > As the Hon Sec Planning of the Chelsea Society (among
          > other things) I am constantly examining local development
          > applications in the light of the Mayor's Plan for London
          > and the Borough Council's Unitary Development Plan. As
          > drafted and enforced these plans, for instance, make it
          > possible for the Royal Hospital Chelsea, with its
          > extensive park to pay a Council Tax that grossly
          > undervalues its site. If it was taxed, through LVT, at a
          > value that represented the development value of the park,
          > the Hospital would probably have to sell off most of the
          > park for development. (It might have to close down
          > altogether because of the very generous spaces that are
          > present in Sir Christopher Wren palatial buildings.)
          > Pensioners and residents who enjoy the 'lung', the amenity
          > or however one might describe it, of the park (and the
          > historic architecture of the pensioners; quarters) would
          > then lose assets and inner city living would be by that
          > much diminished.







          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

          * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/


          * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          <mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubsc
          ribe>


          * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
          Terms of <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Terence Bendixson
          Harry I am fortunate enough to be sitting as I write this overlooking a wonderfully green and secluded garden square. It is about 20 tennis courts in sized -
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Harry

            I am fortunate enough to be sitting as I write this overlooking a
            wonderfully green and secluded garden square. It is about 20 tennis courts
            in sized - maybe a bit more. But I also go to Hyde Park for week end walks
            and, come the summer, swim in the Serpentine lake.

            It would be very hard to say that one is better than the other. It is like
            comparing dingy sailing with crewing a vessel designed for the America's
            cup. Both are invaluable in big cities. And in both cases everything turns
            on the quality of their management.

            Regards

            Terence

            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: "Harry Pollard" <henrygeorgeschool@...>
            To: "'Dan Sullivan'" <pimann@...>; <LandCafe@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:52 PM
            Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies


            > Dan,
            >
            >
            >
            > The "privileged" you mention are so by virtue of their legal
            > right to take Rent.
            >
            >
            >
            > If 100% of the Rent is collected the "privilege" is gone.
            >
            >
            >
            > Incidentally, small neighborhood parks seem to be better
            > than the set-pieces like Central Park and Hyde Park. They
            > produce friendly groupings where people talk to each other.
            >
            >
            >
            > Harry
            >
            > *******************************
            >
            > Henry George School of Social Science
            >
            > of Los Angeles
            >
            > Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
            >
            > 818 352-4141
            >
            > *******************************
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > _____
            >
            > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
            > [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dan Sullivan
            > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 6:39 AM
            > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: RE: [LandCafe] Oxford Times replies
            >
            >
            >
            > I had meant to post this reply to the list yesterday, but
            > replied to
            > sender. It goes a bit further than Mark Porthouse's post, to
            > which I
            > will respond presently.
            >
            > It strikes me that what land is held open in the public
            > interest ought to
            > be held by the public. That is, Chelsea should buy the park
            > in question
            > and truly insure its continuance. The fact of the matter is
            > that *any*
            > financial crunch this hospital faces could lead to their
            > selling of this
            > park, whether or not the park itself is taxed.
            >
            > This is true of any land that is held out of use for public
            > benefit. The
            > public should control its own lands and not rely on the
            > "noblesse
            > oblige" of the privileged. Conversely, it should not
            > arbitrarily interfere
            > with people's use of their own lands by zoning that use
            > away. Either it
            > is their land or the public's land.
            >
            > Land value tax will cost the average citizen less than the
            > council
            > property tax costs, and will cost *far* less than a local
            > income tax
            > would cost. "After saving so much money, Chelsea citizens
            > could
            > easily afford a small increase so they could make a fair
            > offer on the
            > parcel in question and turn it into a public park.
            >
            > The hospital, of course, would like to have it both ways --
            > get a tax
            > break for holding the park in its current state and then
            > sell it for
            > development when the time is "ripe" for doing so. This is
            > called
            > having their cake and eating yours, too.
            >
            > -ds
            >
            > On 28 May 2005 at 12:53, Terence Bendixson wrote:
            >
            > > As the Hon Sec Planning of the Chelsea Society (among
            > > other things) I am constantly examining local development
            > > applications in the light of the Mayor's Plan for London
            > > and the Borough Council's Unitary Development Plan. As
            > > drafted and enforced these plans, for instance, make it
            > > possible for the Royal Hospital Chelsea, with its
            > > extensive park to pay a Council Tax that grossly
            > > undervalues its site. If it was taxed, through LVT, at a
            > > value that represented the development value of the park,
            > > the Hospital would probably have to sell off most of the
            > > park for development. (It might have to close down
            > > altogether because of the very generous spaces that are
            > > present in Sir Christopher Wren palatial buildings.)
            > > Pensioners and residents who enjoy the 'lung', the amenity
            > > or however one might describe it, of the park (and the
            > > historic architecture of the pensioners; quarters) would
            > > then lose assets and inner city living would be by that
            > > much diminished.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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
            >
            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/
            >
            >
            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > <mailto:LandCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubsc
            > ribe>
            >
            >
            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
            > Terms of <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > 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.