In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

I am not saying that there are not arguments for trying to arange
for land use patterns to change, though I think ownership is
irrelevant,

a In the UK, with the political system of power and influence it is
a not.

Land per-se doesn't give power, though wealth does and wealth may be
in land. Playing with theland ownership (unless you are considering
theft) will just mve the wealth into forms where it will be more easy
to use it to gain influence.

and I am not saying there are not high land prices. I am just
saying there is no obvious mechanism whereby the _ownership_
pattern could be the cause of a significant amount of the price
problem, and you have yet to describe a non-obvious one.

a This 1% who own 70% of the land have little intention of selling. This
a creates an artificial land shortage in itself.

This would be more convincing if there was a land shortage caused by
people not selling. So far as I can see there is not. There is land
shortage in some places because of basic geometry, and there is
planning permission shortage in other areas.

a What an analogy! When a government makes a law it should ensure openess,
a not one law for the well heeled and another for the plebs. The Lords (the
a major land owners at the time) got their way in ensuring their land was not
a listed.

And this affects me because? Maybe the Duke of Buccleuh owns the land
the flats opposite mine are built on, but I can't see that it makes
much difference to my life.

a You obviously don't understand the effects and great benefits of land
a re-distribution.

Land redistribution makes sense when there is desperate need for the
land. That would perhaps have been true a century or two ago when more
people workedon the land. As of now, it matters little to most people
if a square mile of set-aside farmland is owned by one person or six.

The UK has been going through a crash in land values, because of the
drop in demand for farm land. If they really reformed the CAP the
price of land would drop even more.

a The 4K per hectare of land you might have bought will stay just
a that.....land. You can't build on it, they will not allow it.

Indeeed, so the roblem is not who owns what land, but the planning system.

What is expensive is the permisson, not the land.

a What is expensive is the LAND.

No, because land without permission is 4K, land with permission is
400K. Clearly it is the permission which is expensive, not the land.

a Getting the planning permissions is dirt cheap.

Then buy some land for 4K, get the permission `dirt cheap' and make
yourself a few hundred thousand pounds profit.

The big picture is land at 4K per hectare.

a But no one except a frigging farmer can use it. Or not use it and get
a subsidies. Try building your dream home on it.

You just said it would be dirt cheap to get planning permisison to do so.

--
Mail me as _O_
|