"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.
____________________
HOW LAND AFFECTS THE AVERAGE PERSON

Contents:

INTRODUCTION
PROBLEMS
THE UK HAS A LAND SURPLUS
QUESTIONS
PLANNING
SOLUTIONS
1. Nationalise Land
2. Redistribute Land.
3. Land Value Tax
THE WAY FORWARD


INTRODUCTION

The UK has a very big problem that lies at the root of many of its problems;
it is the usage and ownership of "land". Most people are not aware that
land is a big problem that affects just about every man, woman and child in
the UK. This problem has been effectively suppressed.

PROBLEMS

The value of land accounts for 2/3 of the value of the average home in the
UK - a very big problem.

Some points relating to high land prices:

a) House Prices Are Far Too High

The people of the UK pay very high prices for very small high density homes.
UK house prices are amongst the highest in the world in comparison to
comparable countries. The more land is a greater part of the total house
price the higher house prices become. An acre of agricultural land can be
purchased for £2,000, a complete eco kit home for £20,000, yet the average
price of a house in the UK is near to £200,000. Obtaining planning
permission to erect a house in a country with a land surplus will be near
impossible. Few people realise that the high land value is the reason why
their homes are so expensive.

b) High Land Prices Disrupt Family Life

High land values cascading into high house prices entails that both parents
of homes in the vast majority of families need to work to pay mortgages to
keep a very small roof over their heads. Only about 8% of UK families have
the wife at home full time. This breakdown in traditional family life
results in the latch-key kids, who all too often end up as delinquents and
in trouble. Vandalism and graffiti is rife in the UK giving the country a
very poor image.

c) People Priced Out of Housing Market

The problem of not allowing people to build on land is surfacing in parts of
the country where people with low incomes and in some cases not so low, are
being priced out of the housing market. Many cannot afford to live in the
towns, villages and city districts where they were born and brought up,
having to leave splitting family groups. Many of these towns and villages
are surrounded by low grade land which lays idle through public subsidy.
Small builders and individual selfbuilders are eager to build on this land
to fill the local housing gap; however they are prevented from doing so.

This artificial shortage of available building land reduces home ownership.
Home ownership in the UK is at 68% which is lower than Spain, Finland,
Ireland, Greece, Australia and New Zealand and very close to rates in Italy,
Portugal and Luxembourg.

The land is not serving the people. Not only that, it financially penalises
the people.

d) Houses Far Too Small

The averaged sized home in the UK is a paltry 120 square metres. In Japan,
a country notorious for small homes, the average sized home is 140 square
metres. The averaged size living room in the UK is a miniscule 13 foot by
15 foot; a room which has to function as TV room, children's play room,
entertainment room and relaxation room. If the averaged sized man stands in
the middle of a typical British living room and stretched out an arm he will
hit either a wall or ceiling. British TV has many programmes dedicated to
giving a larger feel to a room by careful choice of furnishing and colour
co-ordination.

The housing charity, Shelter, estimate 500,000 households are officially
overcrowded.

e) Consumer Debt Is Mainly Mortgages

The media is full of tales of high consumer debt in the UK. Few state that
80% is actually mortgages, not debt for luxury goods; giving the impression
the people of the UK are financially reckless and decadent. In short,
people pay extortionate amounts for a tiny roof to keep themselves warm and
dry.

f) High Land Prices Discourage Commerce and Industry

High land prices result in high rents, which are passed onto commerce and
industry. Many foreign investors and companies have been discouraged from
establishing in the UK because of uncompetitive rents.

g) People Prevented From Building Affordable Homes

Preventing people from building affordable homes in the countryside forces
them into urban areas where many will be given publicly owned or subsidised
homes, paid for from our taxes. We pay from public money, which could be
better spend on needy projects, to house people who would otherwise pay for
and build their own homes. This is obviously a ludicrous situation.
Taxpayes money keeps land idle and is also used to house people. Better use
can be made of public money.

h) Land is at Root of Traveller Problems

Approximately 300,000 people the UK travel the roads in caravans,
effectively homeless. Some traveller societies, mainly the original
Gypsies, have deep routes and traditions of travelling, most do not. Many
have become a nuisance to the wider society and are firmly unwanted and
unwelcome wherever they set up camp. The root cause that initially forced
theses people onto the roads was access to land to live on. The Irish
travelling communities originated when Ireland's land was owned by a handful
of people forcing these people off the land they lived on. Many of the
travellers in the UK originate from Ireland. Most traveller families want a
permanent place to live. The evictions of Travellers caravans from land
they actually own when attempting a permanent settlement clearly
demonstrates this. If travellers were allowed to build permanent homes the
problem would be alleviated.

- Strange that land can be the root of excessive house prices, however very
true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of much child and teenage
vandalism, however very true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of forcing people out of their
home towns and villages, splitting up families, however very true.

- Strange that land can result in homes being far too small, however very
true.

- Strange that land can be the root cause of disrupted families, however
very true.

- Strange that land can discourage business and growth, however very true.

- Strange that land accounts for vast profits by financial institutions
lending money for homes with inflated prices, however very true.

- Strange in that land increases our tax burden on subsidised homes, however
very true.

- Strange in that land created, and maintains, the problem of the
travellers, however very true.

The above is all very true.

THE UK HAS A LAND SURPLUS

Contrary to popular belief, the UK has approximately only 7% of its land
built on. The Urban plot of 4 million acres is only 6.6%. The UK actually
has a surplus of land. Despite claims of concreting over the South East of
England, only 7.1% is built on with the Home Counties being underpopulated.
The North West of England is densest with 9.9% built upon.

Question 1. So why does land account for 2/3 of the value of the average
home, with all the negative spins offs, if we have all this land available?

Quite simply, the deliberate creation of an artificial land shortage, which
ramps up land prices.

Question 2. What creates this artificial land shortage?

The 1947 Town and Country Planning act, introduced by a "Labour" government,
that promised land reform during the 1945 general election, herds people in
small isolated highly dense pockets of land in urban areas. Amazingly the
Labour government allowed the Council for the Protection of Rural England
(CPRE) to be involved in drafting the act. CPRE was formed by large
landowners. They influenced the act to suit themselves. The naïve Labour
administration at the time accepted their input. Over 90% of the population
now live in urbanised areas, the second highest percentage in Europe,
leaving the countryside virtually empty, because of this draconian act.
This crams near 55 million people into around 7% of the land, which is only
4.2 million acres out of a UK total of 60 million acres. 60 million people
own just 6% of the land.

The act prevents us from building on the countryside, even though much of it
is being paid to remain idle by taxpayers money. A countryside that has
lost people at an alarming rate over the past 30 years. The people of the
UK are forced into tight urban pockets paying extortionate prices for land,
and subsequently houses. Their taxes are used to reinforce this bizarre
situation by paying to:

1. Keep land unused to maintain an artificial land shortage inflating house
prices.
2. House people unnecessarily in public funded housing.

This adds insult to injury. A contemptuous slap in the face.

Question 3. Who are the biggest benefactors of this artificial land
shortage?

a) Primarily Large Landowners.

The ludicrously small figure of 0.65% of the UK population own 68.3% of the
land, many are aristocratic families dating back many hundreds of years.
Despite propaganda stating that the British aristocracy is poverty stricken
and exists no more, they have managed to hang on to their lucrative acres
very well, and in many cases expand their empires.

The root of this situation came about from the Norman conquest. The Normans
gave land to people who were favourable to them. In short, many of these
families were traitors to their own kind conspiring with invaders. The
Saxons had a very different approach to land, its ownership and usage.
Later, the enclosures of common lands and the Highland croft clearances
completed the land rout. The situation has never been rectified.

The UK still has this landowning aristocratic legacy, which still, despite
propaganda stating otherwise, has a large effect and influence on the
British people. Large landowners are part of the British establishment and
do everything in their power to keep the status quo. The late Enoch Powel
described the British establishment as "the power that need not speak its
name". A very astute description.

Most of these landowners produce little making their vast profits by taking
rent. When the media reports that times are hard for farmers, they omit the
word "tenant". It should be "tenant farmers". When times are bad the
landowner always gets his rent, or takes the farm back, paying no taxes on
it when idle, and leaves it until times are better.

To justify their monopolies in land ownership, large landowners state they
are only custodians of the land and only they can maintain the land
properly. "Maintaining the land properly" is rather open and vague, if they
ever do such a thing of course. If these people are only custodians and
looking after the land for our benefit, then why aren't the public allowed
on uncultivated land? These "custodians" fence off all their lands and only
allow on people when forced to by law. Their claims clearly do not hold
water.

The UK has never had a revolution and no political party has had the stomach
to face up to large landowners, who are a legacy of our totally unjust past.
Landed families infiltrate the top brass of the military. In the 1960s,
there were many rumours of military coups against the reforming Wilson
government as many in the British establishment thought, amongst other
things, he would nationalise land. After all, in 1945 Atlee promise land
reform, but ran out of time, so Wilson, a major part of the Atlee
government, should carry out the promise when the Labour party returned to
power, which he mysteriously never did.

Tony Blair ejected from the House of Lords 66 hereditary peers, who between
them owned the equivalent of 4.5 average sized English counties. The Royal
family controls approximate the size of one average sized English county.
The Duke of Argyle owns vast tracts of Scotland. Historically landowners
have been a problem; the Irish famine was a direct result of large
landowners. The problem is still with us and in many respects even greater.
With large landowners being omnipresent in the Palace of Westminster, land
reform would always be difficult if near impossible. Tony Blair ejecting
hereditary peers is the first step in land reform, as one barrier has been
partially dismantled.

"Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They
simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with
title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was
going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the
excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the
heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they
had the power to do so." - George Orwell.

b) Large Construction Companies.

Approximately 80% of all homes built in the UK are built by about only 20
companies. In no other country in the western world does such a monopoly
exist. The sort of situation seen in banana republics. The House Builders
Federation influences the building regulations so heavily in order to
maintain the status quo that the UK is backwards in house building
technology compared to large parts of Western Europe, Scandinavia and North
America. The House Builders Federation opposes any increase in building
regulations that they perceive will eat into their members vast profits.
They opposed all increases in insulation standards and in 1990 described the
proposed insulation increase as a cosmetic exercise.

Graham Chapman, the founder the Lotus motor car company, wanted to make the
best sports cars, and aimed to do so. Large house developers only want
profit not caring about the poor quality dross they serve up. None want to
build the best designed and constructed houses. As no Graham Chapman is
present in the British construction industry, they will have to be
legislated into leading edge advanced designs and construction.

The deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has verbally ordered developers to
adopt advanced technology and improve the renowned poor quality of new
homes. Otherwise he says he will intervene. However, there is no
legislation to force the issue, although Prescott's famed left hook might.
If there is a change of government or minister would the successor have the
same drive as Prescott? All encouraging, however without firm legislation
as the driver, quite hollow.

It comes as no surprise that amongst the richest people in the UK are
landowners and construction company owners. The richest man in the USA is
Bill Gates a creator of software products that people benefit from - he is
productive, he produces. In the UK, the richest man is the Duke of
Westminster, who primarily takes in rent.

c) A Poor Performing Industry

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, which only accounts for
about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over subsidised industry
is absorbing land that could be better used economically in commerce and for
much needed higher quality homes for people. Much of the land is paid to
remain idle out of our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of
agriculture and import most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper
elsewhere.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually killed by
allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created great misery
and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is subsidised to the
hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be better utilised for
the greater good of our society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat. We
also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and steel
industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from abroad.
Should taxpayers money be propping up an economically small industry that
consumes vast tracts of land that certainly could be better used? What is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is about £4.5 billion per year, up to £6
billion if BSE and Foot and Mouth is taken into account. This is £6 billion
to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per annum.
Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural industry,
about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres agriculture
absorbs, and about 16 million acres are uneconomic. Apply real economics to
farming and you theoretically free up 16 million acres, which is near 27% of
the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the people of the
UK. Allowing people to spread out and live amongst nature is highly
desirable and at the same time lower land prices. This means lower house
prices which the UK desperately requires. Second country homes could be
within reach of many people, as in Scandinavia, creating large recreation
and construction industries, and keeping people n touch with the nature of
their own country. In Germany few people do not have access to a large
forest which they tend to walk in at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal
for recreation and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could
be turned over to public forests.


Question 4. Why is this artificial land shortage tolerated by the people of
the UK?

Quite simply the large landowners have waged a subtle highly successful
propaganda campaign that has convinced the people of the UK that they do not
have enough land and that nothing should be built on open countryside.
Propaganda may appear too strong a word, however propaganda it certainly is.
Large landowners point to very large countries like the USA and Australia as
proof the UK is small with open countryside scarce. When viewing the UK in
isolation it is not small and can easily support its 60 million people and
even lots more. Open countryside is in abundance. The propaganda campaign
has been so successful, you will find poor people in inner city sink estates
agreeing that the countryside should not be built on; people who probably
have never even stepped on a field.

Emotive terms have been formed and liberally used such as "concreting over
the countryside" and "urban sprawl". With only about 7% of the land built
on, we can't concrete over the countryside even if we wanted to. About two
thirds of all new housing is built within existing urban areas with the
remainder mainly built on the edge of urban areas. Very little is built on
open countryside.

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted limit is that
if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the other its expansion
naturally tails off. In olden times this hour was on foot or on horseback,
now it is in cars or on public transport. So we can't "sprawl" too far
either. In England the area of greenbelt has doubled since 1980, with
nearly 21 million acres absorbed in total. The UK actually has greenbelt
sprawl.

The biggest propaganda organs a the Council For The Protection of Rural
England and the Countryside Alliance. Green movements like Friends of the
Earth have been accused of being fronts for large landowners. Large
landowners use green groups to keep people out of the countryside. The
former is an organisation formed by large landowners and the latter is
funded by large landowners. Their angle is keep the status quo by keeping
townies out of the countryside, and also keeping villagers in villages. A
Cabinet Office report described the countryside as, "the near exclusive
preserve of the more affluent sections of society."

The Council for the Protection of Rural England have protected little of the
character of the English countryside since world war two, despite their
claims. In 1940 the German air force took photo reconnaissance photos of
largely southern England. The captured photos, when compared to the
ordnance survey maps of 1870, 70 years before, clearly indicated there was
little difference in topology. When compared to the ordnance survey maps of
today, there are vast changes. The 1947 T&C planning act just allowed
landscape raping agriculturalists, who contribute no more than around 2.5%
to the UK economy, to go wild.

The Council for the Protection of Rural England claim to be acting in the
interest of the land, wildlife and the countryside in general. This is far
from the case. It is the obscene profits of large landowners they are
primarily interested in, protecting little of rural England.

PLANNING

Land reform must mesh with decent relaxed planning laws that allow people to
build on all land. Laws passed relating to land are rendered sterile if
relaxed planning laws are not implemented. Areas of natural beauty, SSSI's,
national parks, industrial and commercial sectors etc, of course should have
restrictions, which still leaves a vast amount of subsidised field Britain
to build on. Building on a larger mass of land will eliminate the
unappealing high density, high impact developer estates; the sort that make
people shudder, with many having to buy as they have Hobson's choice. When
people are weary of building on the countryside they envisage high density,
high impact developer estates. The vision of these estates stirs negative
emotions. That clearly would not occur if the people are allowed to spread
out on the land. With cheaper land, people would build larger houses on
larger plots for less money. Having the large developers curtailed will
result in a mixed assortment of higher quality homes.

The autonomous house is virtually here. Superinsulation, septic tanks,
combined heat & power units, grey water re-cycling, rainwater harvesting,
wireless communications, mobile phones, amongst others, are all here. This
sort of house also has a low impact on the environment. Connection to urban
utilities is no longer necessary. Locating homes with all modern
conveniences, just about anywhere in the UK is now feasible. Herding people
into urban communities because they offered basic utilities is no longer
need be the case.

A farmer can build a 40 foot ugly concrete barn structure without planning
permission. The agricultural industry in some areas has blotted the
landscape as far as the eye can see with polythene tunnels to grow fruits of
which some are not native to the UK. If a good looking house was built to
the local vernacular visually enhancing the countryside, without planning
permission, it would be pulled down by the authorities. Houses are deemed
to blot the countryside and undesirable, yet raw concrete and polythene is
not, and is accepted.

We should be living amongst nature, not having to drive out to see it.
Walking on land is another matter, as most of it is fenced off.

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their
native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads" - Henry George.

Countryside organisations are demanding all city brownfield sites be built
on. We now have an ideal opportunity to leave most of these sites vacant,
cleaned up and made natural again by turned them into parks, woods and
encouraging wildlife for the local people to enjoy. This is an ideal
opportunity to improve brownfield areas, improving the quality of life of
urban dwellers righting the wrongs of the incompetent planners of the past.
Areas like Hampstead Heath should be actively encouraged. Woods in towns
and cities would also be a great bonus. The deliberate differentiation
between town and country requires abolition as the Town & Country planning
act attempts to divide. Using the words town and country sets the tone. It
creates conflict. It creates two separate societies. It creates distrust.

When presenting an advanced German Huf Haus house on TV, Quentin Wilson
stated that modern architecture in Britain ceased after world war two.
Quentin was totally correct. The 1947 Town & Country Planning act curtailed
advancement in design, being hostile to change. Top British eco architects
Brenda and Robert Vale left the UK to practice abroad, disillusioned at a
planning system that firmly restricts advancement.

The 2004 PPS7 planning law, may hopefully pave the way for people to live
back in the countryside and build individual homes on greenfield sites. The
proviso is that it must be an eco house, well designed, modern, with
advanced construction techniques. Taken from the act:

Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

"11. Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the
design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special
justification for granting planning permission. Such a design should be
truly outstanding and ground-breaking, for example, in its use of materials,
methods of construction or its contribution to protecting and enhancing the
environment, so helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural
areas. The value of such a building will be found in its reflection of the
highest standards in contemporary architecture, the significant enhancement
of its immediate setting and its sensitivity to the defining characteristics
of the local area."

The PPS7 law, which on paper actively encourages advanced eco construction,
is a positive step. If PPS7 is implemented anything like the previous PPG7,
Gummers law, which permitted building houses in the countryside, then hope
is lost rendering this law a cosmetic exercise. Approximately 100 houses
were built in the countryside under Gummers law from 1997 to 2004, a figure
is so low not worth considering. Theoretically you could build, however the
planners would block proposals at every angle and opportunity rendering the
law virtually useless.

SOLUTIONS

1. Nationalise Land
2. Redistribute Land.
3. Land Value Tax


1. NATIONALISE LAND

In theory, the Queen, the state, owns all the land in the UK. A nation
state has sovereignty over its own territory. In short, it owns all the
land. So how can individual people own its land too? Sounds like horse
trading. A workaround was to grant an infinite lease on the land, the
title, and the ability to sell on the lease. Effectively this is land
ownership by individuals or organisations.

For the state to take direct control of land would be a difficult task to
undertake. It would not be generally accepted by the people, although they
own it anyhow. Compensation would be demanded by landowners. Compensating
large landowners would be akin to compensating slave traders when slavery
was abolished; as the British government did. The concept of "land
ownership" has been in the western psyche for hundreds of years, and
redirecting their mindset would be difficult and lengthy.

Nationalising land would mean some form of lease back arrangement, which the
government would receive rents. Of course, a relaxed planning system must
accompany such nationalisation, to allow people to freely live on the land.


2. REDISTRIBUTE LAND.

Most major western nations have re-distributed land having laws preventing
large areas of land being in the hands of a few people. These countries
generally have a higher quality of life than the UK because of their
sensible land laws. The British government started the ball rolling in the
late 1800s to re-distribute land in Ireland. It was accomplished in 2000
with the Irish Land Commission being disbanded completing the task. The
land had to be bought from the larger landowners, none was confiscated.
Land re-distribution in Ireland has been attributed as one of the platforms
of its economic success. Large landowners were a direct cause of the Irish
famine, which eventually resulted in the Irish rebellion. Land being in the
hands of a few is not ideal from many aspects.

The British government is to pay for land re-distribution in Zimbabwe -
using British taxpayers money. The British government can re-distribute
land elsewhere in the world, but fails to do so in its own backyard. A
backyard screaming out for land and planning reform.

In 1945 the USA assessed Japan and how it should cope with the future. They
assessed that land ownership was a major obstacle, being in the hands of a
few people. To great effect land re-distribution was forced on the
Japanese, being attributed as one of the keystones of their post war
economic miracle.

Land re-distribution is effective. It may mean large landowners will have
to sell parts of their estates, with laws capping land ownership levels. Of
course, a relaxed planning system must accompany such re-distribution, to
allow people to freely live on the land.


3. LAND VALUE TAX (LVT)

Henry George, an American, the man who devised LVT, initially proposed
government ownership of all land, as the people owned it anyhow. Getting it
across and accepted would have been virtually impossible. If you say,
redistribute land, people cry "communism, taking away from me what is mine".
Henry George realised that people will not accept that you cannot own land.
It is in the western worlds, especially the Anglo Saxon, psyche. That is
where LVT excels. Own land by all means, but if you own half of Scotland
just to shoot birds on, tax will be due on that land, which currently is not
the case. LVT will force large landowners to sell land and not hoard it.
It will also encourage them to make productive use of the land; if they
cannot then they sell it to someone who can make productive use of it.

LVT taxes only the "value" of the land, which is based on the market value
of the land. LVT, regards property as the items on the land, not the land
itself. Someone in northern Scotland on one acre will pay very little as
the land is not worth so much. Someone in central London with one acre pays
substantially more.

LVT does not tax a mans labour, and hence his productivity, which the
current system does, holding back advancement.

Currently people's labour and lifestyle is taxed. The more you work, the
more tax you pay. If I build a nice extension to my house so my family can
enjoy and improve their quality of life, the council tax is raised. Totally
ludicrous. There can be two one-acre plots side by side. I want to build
an eight-roomed house for my family to enjoy and the man next door a
two-bedroom bungalow, so he can enjoy the land for gardening. Under the
current system, I pay more than next door in council tax. Under LVT we pay
the same as the bricks on the land is not regarded as taxable, only the land
is. A large house creates jobs in building the structure and ongoing
maintenance, yet the current system suppresses job creation and curtails the
quality of life by penalising people who build larger houses. The word
large is all relevant. A large house in the UK would be an average house in
the USA.

LVT spreads the proceeds of a society's productivity more evenly than at
present. It does not penalise a person's effort to advance.

"Land should be taxed as much as possible, and improvements as little as
possible." - Milton Friedman (economist)

"I have made speeches by the yard on the subject of land-value taxation,
and you know what a supporter I am of that policy." - Winston Churchill

THE WAY FORWARD

Sort out the land and planning systems and many problems that appear
unrelated in British society disappear. It is not a panacea to right all
the country's ills; however it will be a superb base on which to spring
from, as other countries have effectively demonstrated, and right many, many
of the problems of our unfair and uneven society.

A stumbling block to any reform by the general public is that many home
owners perceive that planning and land reform will devalue their homes and
result in negative equity. The country appears obsessed with house price
values. Value is an abstract concept with cash being the reality. In some
areas negative equity may be the case, although some opinion is that this
would not occur. A fund taken from LVT taxes could compensate those who
drop into the trap. As land prices rise with time, negative equity would
cease to be a problem, just a transitional problem from changing from one
system to another.

Clearly the public need to be informed that land, the God given stuff under
their feet, without which we cannot survive, is the major problem in their
own advancement and actually curtails their current living standards and
quality of life. That is the man in the inner city sink estate, the man in
the terraced house, the man in the box semi, the man in the executive home
and the country villager. Once the public is aware and this suppressed
problem becomes an open issue, then the road is clear for land reform no
matter what method is selected. Until then land and land tax reformers are
sailing into the wind. Emphasis must be moved to educate and alert the
average man and how he is directly affected.