Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Jim Ley wrote:

You can charge more rent on Canary Wharf, than you can on
a empty field, or forest.

Do you understand any economics?


No he doesn't: thus this thread repeats every few months. With few
exceptions the more money you have, the more you are likely to
choose to live in a densely populated urban area, precisely because
the population density is what delivers such a depth and choices of
facilities of all sorts - retail, employment, leisure etc.



Conversely, if you like peace and quiet and freedom from the IMM's of
this world, it costs a very great deal of money to purchase isolation.

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a * Average value of an acre of development land is £404,000. High in south
a east of 704,154, low in north east of £226,624. London is in a category of
a its own.

OTOH, according to a quick goole, agricultural land is more like
4,000 - 10,000 per hectare. And that is artificially inflated by the
amount of mponey which is pumped into agricultural subsidy.

So I doubt restricted ownership is the problem, I suspect that
location and planning permission are the only interesting factors in
determining land costs.

No matter who owns land, if everyone wants to live in the same few
places, prices in those places will be very high.

I suspect the reason that so much land is owned by so few is that much
of it is out in places where no one wants to buy it off them.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Liz. I would STRONGLY recommend that you price the job up on the basis
of complete demolish and rebuild, especially if it has a timber wall
frame.

If it has brick, it may be a liottle less.

I got the impression it was solid stone walls - like most of these sort of
buildings.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Ley wrote:
You can charge more rent on Canary Wharf, than you can on
a empty field, or forest.

Do you understand any economics?

No he doesn't:

He certainly does.!!!!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Me neither. And I'm looking at thousands of acres of it right now.

(http://www.axalotl.demon.co.uk/image...study_view.jpg, if anyone's
remotely interested.)

Great view.


and I can assure you
they aren't subsidised in any way.


Hmmm. Where *does* that CAP money go, then?

I'm talking about my own personal fields, as owned by yours
truly, which most certainly are not subsidised.

Wed are not not about your fields, fields in general!


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

So I doubt restricted ownership is the problem,

a It is.

What evidence do you have on that.

I suspect that location and planning permission are the only
interesting factors in determining land costs.

a They are contributing points. Restricted land ownership reinforced by a
a Draconian planning system that favours restricted ownership. A system drawn
a up people who favour restricted ownership.

What effect do you believe resticted ownership has?

Conside the number of owners in a square mile of London compares to in
a suqre mile of the Highlands. The llater is likely all owned by one
person, the former split betwen lots of owners of small plots. It is
the land where ownership is split between lots of people which is expensive.

Lacking evidence to the contrary it still looks far more likely that
the restricted ownership is due to the limited demand for land in the
areas wherethose few big land owners own land.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

So I doubt restricted ownership is the problem,

a It is.

What evidence do you have on that.

Read "Who Own Britain"

I suspect that location and planning permission are the only
interesting factors in determining land costs.

They are contributing points. Restricted
land ownership reinforced by a
Draconian planning system that favours
restricted ownership. A system drawn
up people who favour restricted ownership.

What effect do you believe resticted ownership has?

Read the post of mine about Who Own Britain. Then read the book.

Conside the number of owners
in a square mile of London compares to in
a suqre mile of the Highlands. The
llater is likely all owned by one
person, the former split betwen lots
of owners of small plots. It is
the land where ownership is split
between lots of people which is expensive.

You are off mark. Look at the big picture relating to the UK, not what the
situation is in Soho, which is owned mainly by one man, Paul Raymond.

Lacking evidence to the contrary
it still looks far more likely that
the restricted ownership is due to
the limited demand for land in the
areas wherethose few big land
owners own land.

As I say, read the book, understand the problem then conclude. The point is
you, and millions of us, are being shafted.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

IMM wrote:

snip
I advise all to read it, and absorb the raw facts that we as a nation are
being ripped-off good style. That is you, me and everyone else except the
chosen aristocratic few. Something has to happen ASAP to rectify this
gigantic injustice. The kicking out of the Lords of parasites is the first
step, now to do the business....

Interesting stuff.

added to Amazon basket

--
Ben Blaney
GSF1200 VFR800 CBR600 CD200
"We stopped only for fuel"

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

What evidence do you have on that.

a Read "Who Own Britain"

Don't you know the reasoning well enough to summarise?

What effect do you believe resticted ownership has?

a Read the post of mine about Who Own Britain.

I did, you didn't give any indication of any mechanism by which the
large amount of land in a few hands causes high land prices.

Conside the number of owners in a square mile of London compares to
in a suqre mile of the Highlands. The later is likely all owned by
one person, the former split betwen lots of owners of small
plots. It is the land where ownership is split between lots of
people which is expensive.

a You are off mark. Look at the big picture relating to the UK, not what the
a situation is in Soho, which is owned mainly by one man, Paul
a Raymond.

But the big picture in the whole UK is that land is realatively
cheap. 4,000-10,000 quid per hectare for useful farm land, presumably
much less for land which is less useful for farming.

Land is expensive in areas where the land is owned by by many small
owners. Land is cheap in areas where land is all owned by a few. This
seems to basicly sink the hypothesis that it is large holdings which
are causing the problem.

A concrete example, I live in Edinburgh, one of the places in the UK
with the highest property prices. How do you imagine land reform would
reduce those prices?

Removing the land in the Highlands from whoever ownes it won't greatly
affect land prices in Edinburgh, because few people want to move to
the Highlands.

Removing land from whichever aristocrat it is who ownes a chunk of
central Edinburgh (I forget which) won't do much to land prices,
because what keeps the price high isn't his perversity, but high
demand for an intrinsically limited resource, if that land was owned
by 80 people rather than 1, they would all sell it, if at all, at the
market rate.

So, what kind of land reform do you think _would_ make buying a home
in walking distance of the center of Edinburgh cheaper?

I suppose they could confiscate the royal park from Brenda and
concrete it over, but the main reason that would reduce property
prices isn't the change of ownership, but the fact that it would make
life in Edinburgh rather less pleasent.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

What evidence do you have on that.

a Read "Who Own Britain"

Don't you know the reasoning well enough to summarise?

There is along post by me, read it. If you did you would have seen:

The book argues that our present system of landownership is of material
detriment to the vast majority of homeowners in the UK, imposing a land tax
on homeowners while many of the wealthiest landowners in the country pay no
rates and actually receive money in the form of grants and subsidies for
owning land. Cahill's arguments are supported with 80 pages of
tables, maps and statistics.

And do what Ben Blaney is doing...buying the book and reading it.

You are off mark. Look at the big picture
relating to the UK, not what the
situation is in Soho, which is owned mainly
by one man, Paul Raymond.

But the big picture in the whole UK
is that land is realatively
cheap. 4,000-10,000 quid per
hectare for useful farm land, presumably
much less for land which is less useful
for farming.

Read the post!!! It said..

* Average value of an acre of development land is £404,000. High in south
east of 704,154, low in north east of £226,624. London is in a category of
its own.

The planning system does not allow us to build on this uneconomic,
subsidised land. get it?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a The book argues that our present system of landownership is of material
a detriment to the vast majority of homeowners in the UK, imposing a land tax
a on homeowners while many of the wealthiest landowners in the country pay no
a rates and actually receive money in the form of grants and subsidies for
a owning land. Cahill's arguments are supported with 80 pages of
a tables, maps and statistics.

This does not propose any machanism by which having much land in a
relatively few hands would lead to high land prices.

a And do what Ben Blaney is doing...buying the book and reading it.

I have heard the author talk about his book on R4. His stuff about who
owns what is interetsing. When he gets into conspiracy theories, less
so. There are farmore interesting conspiracy theory books if I were to
decide to spend money on one.

But the big picture in the whole UK is that land is realatively
cheap. 4,000-10,000 quid per hectare for useful farm land,
presumably much less for land which is less useful for farming.

a Read the post!!! It said..

a * Average value of an acre of development land is £404,000. High in south
a east of 704,154, low in north east of £226,624. London is in a category of
a its own.

Yes. But you said I should look at the big picture in all of the UK,
and overall land is relatiovely cheap. It is expensive in a relatively
few areas.

Which way is it? Is it a problem in the UK as a whole (where land is
on average cheap and land ownership is narrow) or in a few in-demand
areas (where land prices are high, but many people own small pices of
land)?

a The planning system does not allow us to build on this uneconomic,
a subsidised land. get it?

The planning system is a different issue, and not really very
central. It is not the planning system which is preventing more homes
being available in expensive areas. People are not prevented from
building new houses in Mayfair or Morningside because of the planning
system, but because there is nowhere to build them.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:56:00 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"Grunff" wrote in message
Huge wrote:
Hmmm. Where *does* that CAP money go, then?

I'm talking about my own personal fields, as owned by yours
truly, which most certainly are not subsidised.

Wed are not not about your fields, fields in general!

Ah, so grunff isn't one of these evil landowning folk controling the
fields so unfortunate people like me have to be homeless?

Jim.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:57:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...

Failed!! Yiu did not read. the above says:
"Average value of an acre of development land is £404,000. High in south
east of 704,154, low in north east of £226,624. London is in a category of
its own"

At £404,000 per acre at the cheapest?? That is cheap??? What world are you
in??

A world where the term "average" is understood?

People are not prevented from
building new houses in Mayfair
or Morningside
because of the planning
system, but because there
is nowhere to build them.

Nowhere? What about the 92.5% of the land that is not built on. They can
build there.

So 92.5% of Mayfair is undeveloped is it?

13.5% of E&W is developed.
http://www.cs2000.org.uk/Report_HTML/08/02.htm

--
John

"John Armstrong" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:57:31 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...

Failed!! Yiu did not read. the above says:
"Average value of an acre of development land is £404,000. High in south
east of 704,154, low in north east of £226,624. London is in a category
of
its own"

At £404,000 per acre at the cheapest?? That is cheap??? What world are
you
in??

A world where the term "average" is understood?

People are not prevented from
building new houses in Mayfair
or Morningside
because of the planning
system, but because there
is nowhere to build them.

Nowhere? What about the 92.5% of the land that is not built on. They can
build there.

So 92.5% of Mayfair is undeveloped is it?

Another who cannot get the big picture and obsessed with London.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:52:41 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Ley wrote:
You can charge more rent on Canary Wharf, than you can on
a empty field, or forest.

Do you understand any economics?

No he doesn't:

He certainly does.!!!!


That's highly questionable.

However, more to the point, is there any new and enlightening material
that you have to post in this thread that has not been posted by you
in the many previous runs of this subject?

I haven't seen any yet, it's just the usual trotting out of
impractical armchair theories by those who don't have to take
responsibility for them.

Why don't you put up a web site with all of this stuff on it, complete
with links to other sites on the subject? You could even include
Fidel Castro's phone number and Tony Blair's inside leg measurement if
you wanted. Presumably you're on intimate terms with both.

You could put in a FAQ to cover all the objections that people raise.

Then whenever you feel an eruption of this magma coming on, you only
need to post a URL to your site and you're done - job complete and
you've unburdened yourself as well as covering a much larger
audience.....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Fishter" wrote in message
...
Hi IMM
In you wrote:

People are not prevented from
building new houses in Mayfair
or Morningside

Obsessed with London eh.

Shame Morningside is in Scotland,

It is?

otherwise your four words might have
meant something.
passes IMM a ? and a , to put in the correct places.

Hooked and trivia eh?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 06/06/2003

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:08:33 +0100, "IMM" wrote:





That's highly questionable.

However, more to the point, is there any new and enlightening material
that you have to post in this thread that has not been posted by you
in the many previous runs of this subject?

I haven't seen any yet, it's just the usual trotting out of
impractical armchair theories by those who don't have to take
responsibility for them.

Why don't you put up a web site with all of this stuff on it, complete
with links to other sites on the subject? You could even include
Fidel Castro's phone number and Tony Blair's inside leg measurement if
you wanted. Presumably you're on intimate terms with both.

You could put in a FAQ to cover all the objections that people raise.

Then whenever you feel an eruption of this magma coming on, you only
need to post a URL to your site and you're done - job complete and
you've unburdened yourself as well as covering a much larger
audience.....

Still a little middle Englander brainwashed to vote Tory.

Not really. I tend to take an a la carte view, issue by issue. In my
constituency it's largely academic.

Anyway, you haven't answered my question.

Is there anything new that you are saying on this subject that has not
been trotted out at least four times before?

It's a simple enough question.......

The suggestion above was an eminently practical one.....

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:08:33 +0100, "IMM" wrote:





That's highly questionable.

However, more to the point, is there any new and enlightening material
that you have to post in this thread that has not been posted by you
in the many previous runs of this subject?

I haven't seen any yet, it's just the usual trotting out of
impractical armchair theories by those who don't have to take
responsibility for them.

Why don't you put up a web site with all of this stuff on it, complete
with links to other sites on the subject? You could even include
Fidel Castro's phone number and Tony Blair's inside leg measurement if
you wanted. Presumably you're on intimate terms with both.

You could put in a FAQ to cover all the objections that people raise.

Then whenever you feel an eruption of this magma coming on, you only
need to post a URL to your site and you're done - job complete and
you've unburdened yourself as well as covering a much larger
audience.....

Still a little middle Englander brainwashed to vote Tory.

Not really.

Andy you are! Now don't fib.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 06/06/2003

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:53:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:08:33 +0100, "IMM" wrote:





That's highly questionable.

However, more to the point, is there any new and enlightening material
that you have to post in this thread that has not been posted by you
in the many previous runs of this subject?

I haven't seen any yet, it's just the usual trotting out of
impractical armchair theories by those who don't have to take
responsibility for them.

Why don't you put up a web site with all of this stuff on it, complete
with links to other sites on the subject? You could even include
Fidel Castro's phone number and Tony Blair's inside leg measurement if
you wanted. Presumably you're on intimate terms with both.

You could put in a FAQ to cover all the objections that people raise.

Then whenever you feel an eruption of this magma coming on, you only
need to post a URL to your site and you're done - job complete and
you've unburdened yourself as well as covering a much larger
audience.....

Still a little middle Englander brainwashed to vote Tory.

Not really.

Andy you are! Now don't fib.


Wrong on both counts.

Now, why can't you answer a straightforward question with a
straightforward answer, or would that be too much to ask?

Since you are ducking the issue (as is normal when you are put on the
spot) one can only draw the conclusion that you don't have anything
to say on this subject that you haven't said in at least three
previous threads on the subject, and that none of this is your own
original thought anyway.

That being the case, having everything posted on a web site somewhere
would seem a very practical solution. Then you wouldn't even have to
cut and paste from all of the various other sites.





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:53:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:08:33 +0100, "IMM" wrote:





That's highly questionable.

However, more to the point, is there any new and enlightening
material
that you have to post in this thread that has not been posted by you
in the many previous runs of this subject?

I haven't seen any yet, it's just the usual trotting out of
impractical armchair theories by those who don't have to take
responsibility for them.

Why don't you put up a web site with all of this stuff on it,
complete
with links to other sites on the subject? You could even include
Fidel Castro's phone number and Tony Blair's inside leg measurement
if
you wanted. Presumably you're on intimate terms with both.

You could put in a FAQ to cover all the objections that people
raise.

Then whenever you feel an eruption of this magma coming on, you only
need to post a URL to your site and you're done - job complete and
you've unburdened yourself as well as covering a much larger
audience.....

Still a little middle Englander brainwashed to vote Tory.

Not really.

Andy you are! Now don't fib.


Wrong on both counts.

Now, why can't you answer a straightforward question with a
straightforward answer, or would that be too much to ask?

Since you are ducking the issue

Andy I don't duck issues. The situation has changed little,over 100s of
years and little since 1947. The only recent change has made matters worse
for us. Johnny Two Jags has said that 3 houses per hectare must be built
instead of two. So we are now more into each others faces than before.
Again we all, get screwed, and by a Labour government.





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

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_
|

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:


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

Land per-se doesn't give power, though
wealth does and wealth may be
in land.

Is the penny dropping?

Playing with theland ownership (unless
you are considering theft)

Read some history about the enclosures. Much of the land owned by the
aristocracy was "stolen" from the people. If so it should be taken back
"without compensation".

will just mve the wealth into forms
where it will be more easy
to use it to gain influence.

It will move wealth to the people, who can use the land to greater good.
Cahill goes into the great benefits that Ireland has gained by
re-distributing land. Or as henry George advocated, leave ownership and
aintroduce Land Value Tax. Large land owners will have to sell unprofitable
land.

This 1% who own 70% of the land
have little intention of selling. This
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 great misery in many tenant farmers who have to pay rent no matter
what the price of crops or animals.

There is land shortage in some places
because of basic geometry,

???? The planning system makes the development land shortage.

and there is planning permission
shortage in other areas.

Are you getting there?

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.

We are talking in general terms relating to the UK, not your personal
circumstances. The system at the moment ramps up land prices for everyone,
that cascades into higher mortgages, rents of domestic, commercial and
industrial.

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

Land redistribution makes sense when
there is desperate need for the
land.

You still don't understand. Re-distribution is purely an economic move not
a supply one.

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.

The prime point is that "development land" is super expensive, and it is
rising in price. Farm land is only good for...farmers.

The 4K per hectare of land you might
have bought will stay just
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.

Planning is a major problem. The large landowners who hog land as it is a
cash cow for them are another. You can de-regulate the planning system,
which it requires, yet if large landowners refuse to sell they countless
acres the problem is only half solved. You need either land re-distribution
or LVT. I prefer LVT.

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

If only!

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.

The process of planning permission is dirt cheap. Once it has it the price
then becomes silly.

Do some reading on the topic.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

Playing with theland ownership (unless you are considering theft)

a Read some history about the enclosures.

So, if I can find evidence that your great^Nth grandfather stole
something, I can confiscate from you the value of that object would
have now?

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.

a There is great misery in many tenant farmers who have to pay rent no matter
a what the price of crops or animals.

My heart bleeds. Lots of people have to pay rent on their homes, no
matter what their income is.

There is land shortage in some places because of basic geometry,

a ????

There are only so many square miles in a city center.

and there is planning permission shortage in other areas.

a Are you getting there?

I am getting to the point where I realise you are trying to play a
shell game. Claiming the problemis land ownership, then when
challenged defendiong as if you had said the problem was the plannign
system, which no one has dissagreed with.

a The prime point is that "development land" is super expensive,

Which is because the planning system is screwed.

a Planning is a major problem. The large landowners who hog land as it is a
a cash cow for them are another.

The latter has no noticable effect since there is not a shortage of
land for sale, except where geomery takes a hand.

a You can de-regulate the planning system,
a which it requires, yet if large landowners refuse to sell they countless
a acres the problem is only half solved.

The _problem_ is completely solved becuase there is not a shortage of
land for sale, only of plannign per,mission for that land.

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

a If only!

Why not?

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

a The process of planning permission is dirt cheap. Once it has it the price
a then becomes silly.

Exactly, so buy it cheap, get the planning permission cheap and sell
for the silly price.

Unless, of course, you think your characterisation of the situation is
********...

You are suggesting that there is something (development planning
permission) which is in very short supply, in high demand, but yet is
dirt cheap.

I don't know what planet you are posting from, but on Earth economics
doesn't work like that.

--
Mail me as _O_
|

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Andy I don't duck issues. The situation has
changed little over 100s of years and little
since 1947.

This was really my point. Clearly you've
done a lot of looking into this,

I have.

and I don't doubt that you hold your
views on the subject sincerely.

I do.

Whether or not it's desirable or
even practical to make
the changes that you suggest is
another matter.

It is clearly desirable to make changes as other countries clearly indicate
in their economies, cost of housing, etc.

I don't happen to agree with the
basic tenet that it is acceptable to
take away people's property and
give to other people, either directly
or indirectly and even if their ancestors
did acquire it by means that
we might view today as dubious.

If the land was stolen then it should be taken back. The current owners are
living the life of Reilly on ill gotten gains. Theft is theft.

The problem is that once you start
on that principle it is a slippery slope.

More like an uphill slope.

No need to take it away. re-distribute land and they have to sell, or
introduce LVT.

I also don't believe that the risk to the
perturbation of the economy
by such measures as Land taxes
are justified.

LVT will improve the economy and not be just moving the furniture around.

In terms of the impact
to the man in the street for whom you
are seeking a more equitable
piece of the cake, would not benefit
from a completely wrecked economy.

You clearly don't understand. LVT fans:

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their
native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads. To them may be
fittingly applied the words of a Tribune of the Roman people, Tiberius
Gracchus: "Men of Rome you are the lords of the world, yet have no right to
a square foot of its soil. the wild beasts have their dens, but the soldiers
of Italy have only air and water.
- Henry George

"And so the tendency has been to assimilate the idea of property in land
with that of property of things of human production, and steps backwards
have even hailed as steps in advance".
- Henry George

"Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more
beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent
love of justice."
- Albert Einstein

"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.


Stop babbling about dismantling the economy for God's sake.

The only recent change has made matters worse
for us. Johnny Two Jags has said that 3
houses per hectare must be built
instead of two. So we are now more into each
others faces than before. Again we all get screwed,
and by a Labour government.

Are you really surprised by this?

No. The land owners have a very effective propaganda machine in the form of
organisations like the Countryside Alliance and some pseudo green movements.
The government did not counter this. If it relaxed planning and allowed us
not the 92.5% of the land the greenies would should from the high heavens
without the government having made any prior counter.

Did you honestly believe that it
would be any different? I feel very
sorry for the large number of
people who were taken in by the
plausible story that was presented in
1997 and are now realising that it has
all been a big marketing game.

The government did not give any story on land in 1997. They are heavy, by
UK standards, on constitutional change, and rightly so. The kicking out of
hereditary peers is a great thing and the thin edge of the edge for land
reform. We will get there eventually. But in land we need revolution not
evolution.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Read some history about the enclosures. Much of the land owned by the
aristocracy was "stolen" from the people. If so it should be taken back
"without compensation".

What - to be then owned by different individuals?

Perhaps you don't know the difference between 'common' land and that
individually owned...

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article , Imm wrote:
Johnny Two Jags has said that 3 houses per hectare must be built
instead of two.

Go to Notting Hill, Kensington, Islington, Eaton Square - all the
places where the millionaires live - and you'll probably find there
are more like 33 to the ha. You surely don't begrudge lesser folk
the same opportunity g

FWIW my retirement home (I hope) will be a 25th floor flat in
Melbourne city cent one of 305 units on a one acre site. The
developer had no problem selling them even though you could buy a
house and garden in the suburbs or away from the city for much less.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:

Johnny Two Jags has said that 3 houses per hectare must be built
instead of two.

Go to Notting Hill, Kensington, Islington,
Eaton Square - all the places where the
millionaires live - and you'll probably find there
are more like 33 to the ha.

These are the town houses. Invariable they will have a country one too.

You surely don't begrudge lesser folk
the same opportunity g

I wish we all had two houses.

FWIW my retirement home (I hope)
will be a 25th floor flat in
Melbourne city cent one of 305
units on a one acre site. The
developer had no problem selling
them even though you could buy a
house and garden in the suburbs or
away from the city for much less.

How does flats ain a foreign country relate to planning and land ownership
in the UK? What is your point?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

Playing with theland ownership (unless you are considering theft)

a Read some history about the enclosures.

So, if I can find evidence that your
great^Nth grandfather stole
something, I can confiscate from you
the value of that object would
have now?

I would say so, yes. Theft is theft.

There is great misery in many tenant
farmers who have to pay rent no matter
what the price of crops or animals.

My heart bleeds. Lots of people have
to pay rent on their homes, no
matter what their income is.

They are in the same boat.

There is land shortage in some places because of basic geometry,

????

There are only so many square miles in a city center.

You are still obessed with London. The UK is more than London.

and there is planning permission shortage in other areas.

Are you getting there?

I am getting to the point where I
realise you are trying to play a
shell game. Claiming the problemis
land ownership,

And it is.

then when challenged defendiong as
if you had said the problem was the plannign
system, which no one has dissagreed with.

You should read. The problem is with both.


The prime point is that "development
land" is super expensive,

Which is because the planning
system is screwed.

Are you getting there.

Planning is a major problem. The large
landowners who hog land as it is a
cash cow for them are another.

The latter has no noticable effect since
there is not a shortage of
land for sale, except where geomery takes a hand.

You age not right. There is a dire shortage of building land. Affordable
building land is near non-existent.

You can de-regulate the planning system,
which it requires, yet if large landowners
refuse to sell their countless
acres the problem is only half solved.

The _problem_ is completely solved becuase
there is not a shortage of
land for sale, only of plannign permission
for that land.

Read this again... You can de-regulate the planning system, which it
requires, yet if large landowners refuse to sell their countless acres the
problem is only half solved.

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

a If only!

Why not?

You know nothing of the planning process.

Exactly, so buy it cheap, get the planning permission cheap and sell
for the silly price.

You know nothing of the planning process.

I don't know what planet you are posting
from, but on Earth economics
doesn't work like that.

It is plain you haven't a clue. Read what was suggested before making a
fool of yourself


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Imm wrote:

These are the town houses. Invariable they will have a country
one too.

Round here (Twickenham) you'll pay £250K+ for a 2-up 2-down on a
plot probably 15' x 60' (84m2): Allow for road and pavements being
30' (15' per house) you get a density of just under 100 houses per
ha. And the very people who buy these houses could have bought a
much larger 1930's semi for less. How many have a country home too.
Very few I suspect: paying one mortgage is enough.

That is nice to know.

How does flats in a foreign country relate to planning and
land ownership in the UK? What is your point?

The point is that even in a country where
land is far more plentiful

The UK is plentiful in land too, they will not allow us onto it to build.
We continue...

and much cheaper than the UK

Because they are not rammed into a tiny percentage of the land mass like we
are.

people will pay a premium to live where
they have access to jobs, shops,
restaurants, leisure facilities,
transport etc. It's the same the world over.

The majority of people "do not" want to live in the middle of a city in a
high rise.

My experience of life
is that if you want to know what people
really think, follow the money and you'll
see what those who have been able to
make choices have chosen.

If the market is open and free then yes. If the market is rigged, as it is
in the UK, then it is a false impression.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:11:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Andy I don't duck issues. The situation has
changed little over 100s of years and little
since 1947.

This was really my point. Clearly you've
done a lot of looking into this,

I have.

and I don't doubt that you hold your
views on the subject sincerely.

I do.

Whether or not it's desirable or
even practical to make
the changes that you suggest is
another matter.

It is clearly desirable to make changes as other countries clearly indicate
in their economies, cost of housing, etc.

As in the former USSR, DDR and Cuba? These are all places that have
experimented with the type of socio-economic engineering that you are
talking about and all have failed. The problem is that ultimately
human nature is of animal origin. We are territorial predators
separated from the rest of the animal kingdom by a relatively narrow
divide.


I don't happen to agree with the
basic tenet that it is acceptable to
take away people's property and
give to other people, either directly
or indirectly and even if their ancestors
did acquire it by means that
we might view today as dubious.

If the land was stolen then it should be taken back. The current owners are
living the life of Reilly on ill gotten gains. Theft is theft.

That depends on whether somebody owned it in the first place. If you
want to subscribe to the idea that land acquired centuries ago having
been "owned" by the common people is theft then you are at liberty to
take that position. Present day law does not support that premise
and neither do I.



The problem is that once you start
on that principle it is a slippery slope.

More like an uphill slope.

It is a downhill slope to anarchy because there is no way to define
what is "legitimate" and what is not. Do you do it on who the owner
is, how much land they own, the value, how long they have owned it,
whether they have a title? It's all very arbitrary and where would
one draw the line?


No need to take it away. re-distribute land and they have to sell, or
introduce LVT.

That's doing exactly the same thing by stealth.



I also don't believe that the risk to the
perturbation of the economy
by such measures as Land taxes
are justified.

LVT will improve the economy and not be just moving the furniture around.

It has never been done in a macro economy so would be a huge and
unjustifiable risk.


In terms of the impact
to the man in the street for whom you
are seeking a more equitable
piece of the cake, would not benefit
from a completely wrecked economy.

You clearly don't understand. LVT fans:

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to their
native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads. To them may be
fittingly applied the words of a Tribune of the Roman people, Tiberius
Gracchus: "Men of Rome you are the lords of the world, yet have no right to
a square foot of its soil. the wild beasts have their dens, but the soldiers
of Italy have only air and water.
- Henry George

"And so the tendency has been to assimilate the idea of property in land
with that of property of things of human production, and steps backwards
have even hailed as steps in advance".
- Henry George

"Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more
beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and fervent
love of justice."
- Albert Einstein

"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.


All eminent people no doubt. It's easy to pontificate when you
don't have responsibility for your actions.

Stop babbling about dismantling the economy for God's sake.

OK, so would you be prepared to put your money where your mouth is?

Let's say that we put you in charge of implementing these reforms that
you think are so important. If you can demonstrate an improvement
to the economy and the lot of the family on the national average
salary in a 5 or 10 year period you receive a large bonus.

OTOH, if the economy or the lot of the average salary family is
negatively affected you get nothing and moreover forfeit all of your
personal assets.

Would you take the job?



The only recent change has made matters worse
for us. Johnny Two Jags has said that 3
houses per hectare must be built
instead of two. So we are now more into each
others faces than before. Again we all get screwed,
and by a Labour government.

Are you really surprised by this?

No. The land owners have a very effective propaganda machine in the form of
organisations like the Countryside Alliance and some pseudo green movements.
The government did not counter this.

They obviously decided that there was no capital to be made from it
and no upsides. That should tell us something.

If it relaxed planning and allowed us
not the 92.5% of the land the greenies would should from the high heavens
without the government having made any prior counter.

Did you honestly believe that it
would be any different? I feel very
sorry for the large number of
people who were taken in by the
plausible story that was presented in
1997 and are now realising that it has
all been a big marketing game.

The government did not give any story on land in 1997. They are heavy, by
UK standards, on constitutional change, and rightly so. The kicking out of
hereditary peers is a great thing and the thin edge of the edge for land
reform.

I think that it's spite and dogma for its own sake.

We will get there eventually. But in land we need revolution not
evolution.


I think that this last sentence summarises your position completely.

The problem, to quote George Orwell as you have done, is that

"Some animals are more equal than others"



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:11:05 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Andy I don't duck issues. The situation has
changed little over 100s of years and little
since 1947.

This was really my point. Clearly you've
done a lot of looking into this,

I have.

and I don't doubt that you hold your
views on the subject sincerely.

I do.

Whether or not it's desirable or
even practical to make
the changes that you suggest is
another matter.

It is clearly desirable to make changes as other countries clearly
indicate
in their economies, cost of housing, etc.

As in the former USSR, DDR and Cuba? These are all places that have
experimented with the type of socio-economic engineering that you are
talking about and all have failed. The problem is that ultimately
human nature is of animal origin. We are territorial predators
separated from the rest of the animal kingdom by a relatively narrow
divide.


I don't happen to agree with the
basic tenet that it is acceptable to
take away people's property and
give to other people, either directly
or indirectly and even if their ancestors
did acquire it by means that
we might view today as dubious.

If the land was stolen then it should be taken back. The current owners
are
living the life of Reilly on ill gotten gains. Theft is theft.

That depends on whether somebody owned it in the first place. If you
want to subscribe to the idea that land acquired centuries ago having
been "owned" by the common people is theft then you are at liberty to
take that position. Present day law does not support that premise
and neither do I.

The law can always be changed.

The problem is that once you start
on that principle it is a slippery slope.

More like an uphill slope.

It is a downhill slope to anarchy

The anarchy has already occurred in the greed of grabbing common land.

because there is no way to define
what is "legitimate" and what is not. Do you do it on who the owner
is, how much land they own, the value, how long they have owned it,
whether they have a title? It's all very arbitrary and where would
one draw the line?

It can be worked out.

No need to take it away. re-distribute
land and they have to sell, or
introduce LVT.

That's doing exactly the same thing by stealth.

Not so. they have to "sell" their land. Note the word "sell". I find it
distasteful that the descendants of thieves profit. though.

I also don't believe that the risk to the
perturbation of the economy
by such measures as Land taxes
are justified.

LVT will improve the economy and not
be just moving the furniture around.

It has never been done in a macro economy
so would be a huge and unjustifiable risk.

It is not a risk. LVT is implemented in any places around the world.

In terms of the impact
to the man in the street for whom you
are seeking a more equitable
piece of the cake, would not benefit
from a completely wrecked economy.

You clearly don't understand. LVT fans:

"The vast majority of the British people have no right whatsoever to
their
native land save to walk the streets or trudge the roads. To them may be
fittingly applied the words of a Tribune of the Roman people, Tiberius
Gracchus: "Men of Rome you are the lords of the world, yet have no right
to
a square foot of its soil. the wild beasts have their dens, but the
soldiers
of Italy have only air and water.
- Henry George

"And so the tendency has been to assimilate the idea of property in land
with that of property of things of human production, and steps backwards
have even hailed as steps in advance".
- Henry George

"Men like Henry George are rare, unfortunately. One cannot imagine a more
beautiful combination of intellectual keenness, artistic form, and
fervent
love of justice."
- Albert Einstein

"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.


All eminent people no doubt. It's easy to pontificate when you
don't have responsibility for your actions.

Firstly the basic backbone has to be firm and sound. It is.

Stop babbling about dismantling
the economy for God's sake.

OK, so would you be prepared to put
your money where your mouth is?

Let's say that we put you in charge of
implementing these reforms that
you think are so important. If you can
demonstrate an improvement
to the economy and the lot of the family
on the national average
salary in a 5 or 10 year period you receive
a large bonus.

That would clear happen.

OTOH, if the economy or the lot of
the average salary family is
negatively affected you get nothing and
moreover forfeit all of your
personal assets.

That would not happen.

Would you take the job?

Yes.

The only recent change has made matters worse
for us. Johnny Two Jags has said that 3
houses per hectare must be built
instead of two. So we are now more into each
others faces than before. Again we all get screwed,
and by a Labour government.

Are you really surprised by this?

No. The land owners have a very effective
propaganda machine in the form of
organisations like the Countryside Alliance
and some pseudo green movements.
The government did not counter this.

They obviously decided that there was
no capital to be made from it
and no upsides. That should tell us something.

No. they just didn't counter them, as it takes time and effort and money.

If it relaxed planning and allowed us
on to the 92.5% of the land the greenies
would shout from the high heavens
without the government having made
any prior counter.

Did you honestly believe that it
would be any different? I feel very
sorry for the large number of
people who were taken in by the
plausible story that was presented in
1997 and are now realising that it has
all been a big marketing game.

The government did not give any story
on land in 1997. They are heavy, by
UK standards, on constitutional change,
and rightly so. The kicking out of
hereditary peers is a great thing and the
thin edge of the edge for land reform.

I think that it's spite and dogma for its own sake.

We will get there eventually. But in land we
need revolution not evolution.

I think that this last sentence summarises
your position completely.

And what might that be?

The problem, to quote George Orwell
as you have done, is that

"Some animals are more equal than others"

Land large land owners, Oxbridge, Harrow & Eton, etc. Yes the pigs are more
equal than others.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a The majority of people "do not" want to live in the middle of a city in
a
a high rise.

Yet many do,

They are the "minority". get it?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

IMM wrote:

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote

Yet many do,

They are the "minority". get it?

I sure don't. Does anyone here (other than IMM himself) get what
IMM is saying?

--
Selah

"Stephen Gower" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote

Yet many do,

They are the "minority". get it?

I sure don't. Does anyone here (other than IMM himself) get what
IMM is saying?

I assume English is not your natural language with a name like Selah.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003

In article , Stephen Gower (sg) writes:

sg I sure don't. Does anyone here (other than IMM himself) get what
sg IMM is saying?

He seems to be saying that the reason there is a difference of
hundreds of thousands of pounds between the price of land and the
price of land with development permission is not that development
permission is valuable, but something unspecified to do with how much
land the Duke of Westminster ownes in Sutherland and so on.

He also seems to be saying that the reason that homes in good bits of
cities are expensive or high density or both is not that they are in
demand and space is limited, but again something about the Duke of
Westminster and his peers.

Beyond that all attempts to make him explain himself just results in
wriggling and restatement of his unexplained leap of logic.

Personally, I'd love to find out how it is that I can convert some 4K
farmland into 400K development land `dirt cheap', but he won't
say. *******! :-)

--
Mail me as _O_
|

IMM wrote:

I assume English is not your natural language with a name like Selah.

Can I therefore assume English is not your natural language with a
name like Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free?

--
Selah

In article ,
Richard Caley MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote:


It's called civilisation. People will pay and put up with the various
drawbacks of different kinds of building to have access to whichever
bits of civilisation they value.

Like proximity to the right school, beach and interesting local shops
(guilty on all three counts). Exactly the same house as ours was about
20% cheaper in other areas of the city so we paid the premium for the
things we valued. We would have preferred an older, 4 bedroom property
further down the hill with some 'character'. But no way could we have
stretched to the purchase price at the time, so we make do with smallish
3 bedrooms and concrete sectional garage to enjoy the premiums anyway.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:17:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That depends on whether somebody owned it in the first place. If you
want to subscribe to the idea that land acquired centuries ago having
been "owned" by the common people is theft then you are at liberty to
take that position. Present day law does not support that premise
and neither do I.

The law can always be changed.

Possibly, but not very likely.


The problem is that once you start
on that principle it is a slippery slope.

More like an uphill slope.

It is a downhill slope to anarchy

The anarchy has already occurred in the greed of grabbing common land.

Relative to the way we see ourselves today as being civilised, most
aspects of life for our distant ancestors could be described as
anarchic.


because there is no way to define
what is "legitimate" and what is not. Do you do it on who the owner
is, how much land they own, the value, how long they have owned it,
whether they have a title? It's all very arbitrary and where would
one draw the line?

It can be worked out.

Easy to say. Impossible to do.



No need to take it away. re-distribute
land and they have to sell, or
introduce LVT.

That's doing exactly the same thing by stealth.

Not so. they have to "sell" their land. Note the word "sell". I find it
distasteful that the descendants of thieves profit. though.

I am sure that if we were to dig deeply enough, we are all the
descendents of thieves.

By today's definition of ownership, theft has not taken place since
nobody legally owned the property in the first place. If you want to
take the view that property "owned by the people" should be returned
"to the people" then fine. The law doesn't support that notion and I
don't either.


I also don't believe that the risk to the
perturbation of the economy
by such measures as Land taxes
are justified.

LVT will improve the economy and not
be just moving the furniture around.

It has never been done in a macro economy
so would be a huge and unjustifiable risk.

It is not a risk. LVT is implemented in any places around the world.

Can you name a country where it is implemented on a national scale?



All eminent people no doubt. It's easy to pontificate when you
don't have responsibility for your actions.

Firstly the basic backbone has to be firm and sound. It is.

The trouble is that it really isn't.


Stop babbling about dismantling
the economy for God's sake.

OK, so would you be prepared to put
your money where your mouth is?

Let's say that we put you in charge of
implementing these reforms that
you think are so important.

Would you take the job?

Yes.

You couldn't have said anything else, of course, but marks for having
the courage of your convictions. It is all hypothetical, of
course.......



They obviously decided that there was
no capital to be made from it
and no upsides. That should tell us something.

No. they just didn't counter them, as it takes time and effort and money.

There's no point in defending a government that is well past its
sell-by date.




We will get there eventually. But in land we
need revolution not evolution.

I think that this last sentence summarises
your position completely.

And what might that be?

Revolution, not evolution - you said it yourself.


The problem, to quote George Orwell
as you have done, is that

"Some animals are more equal than others"

Land large land owners, Oxbridge, Harrow & Eton, etc. Yes the pigs are more
equal than others.


The trouble is that when you get into this it snowballs.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Richard Caley wrote:
In article , Stephen Gower (sg) writes:

sg I sure don't. Does anyone here (other than IMM himself) get what
sg IMM is saying?

He seems to be saying that the reason there is a difference of
hundreds of thousands of pounds between the price of land and the
price of land with development permission is not that development
permission is valuable, but something unspecified to do with how much
land the Duke of Westminster ownes in Sutherland and so on.

He also seems to be saying that the reason that homes in good bits of
cities are expensive or high density or both is not that they are in
demand and space is limited, but again something about the Duke of
Westminster and his peers.

Beyond that all attempts to make him explain himself just results in
wriggling and restatement of his unexplained leap of logic.

Personally, I'd love to find out how it is that I can convert some 4K
farmland into 400K development land `dirt cheap', but he won't
say. *******! :-)



So we ARE saying that the price of houses and land is restricted, not by
a conspiracy, but by our planning system ? If so, I agree with the motion.

Sorry, I just want to put a fixed reference point in this thread.
Steve

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:17:57 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



That depends on whether somebody owned it in the first place. If you
want to subscribe to the idea that land acquired centuries ago having
been "owned" by the common people is theft then you are at liberty to
take that position. Present day law does not support that premise
and neither do I.

The law can always be changed.

Possibly, but not very likely.


The problem is that once you start
on that principle it is a slippery slope.

More like an uphill slope.

It is a downhill slope to anarchy

The anarchy has already occurred in the greed of grabbing common land.

Relative to the way we see ourselves today as being civilised, most
aspects of life for our distant ancestors could be described as
anarchic.


because there is no way to define
what is "legitimate" and what is not. Do you do it on who the owner
is, how much land they own, the value, how long they have owned it,
whether they have a title? It's all very arbitrary and where would
one draw the line?

It can be worked out.

Easy to say. Impossible to do.

Nonsense!

No need to take it away. re-distribute
land and they have to sell, or
introduce LVT.

That's doing exactly the same thing by stealth.

Not so. they have to "sell" their land. Note the word "sell". I find
it
distasteful that the descendants of thieves profit. though.

I am sure that if we were to dig
deeply enough, we are all the
descendents of thieves.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Much of the current land can be traced to
when it was stolen. The theft should be brought to justice.

By today's definition of ownership,
theft has not taken place since
nobody legally owned the property
in the first place.

It was owned by the state and used by all.

If you want to
take the view that property "owned by the people" should be returned
"to the people" then fine. The law doesn't support that notion and I
don't either.

So you condone theft.

I also don't believe that the risk to the
perturbation of the economy
by such measures as Land taxes
are justified.

LVT will improve the economy and not
be just moving the furniture around.

It has never been done in a macro economy
so would be a huge and unjustifiable risk.

It is not a risk. LVT is implemented in any places around the world.

Can you name a country where it is implemented on a national scale?

Not yet, but many towns and cities. The UK nearly adopted it, but WW1 got
in the way .

All eminent people no doubt. It's easy to pontificate when you
don't have responsibility for your actions.

Firstly the basic backbone has to be firm and sound. It is.

The trouble is that it really isn't.

It is and many great brains say so. I don't count you as a great brain.

There's no point in defending a
government that is well past its
sell-by date.

The Tory Little Middle Englander coming out.

We will get there eventually. But in land we
need revolution not evolution.

I think that this last sentence summarises
your position completely.

And what might that be?

Revolution, not evolution - you said it yourself.

Go away!

The problem, to quote George Orwell
as you have done, is that

"Some animals are more equal than others"

Land large land owners, Oxbridge, Harrow & Eton, etc. Yes the pigs are
more
equal than others.

The trouble is that when you get into this it snowballs.

Not really the aristocracy, Oxbridge, Harrow and Eton, Lords Ladies The
Monarchy, large landowners.. all in the same boat. Read what I recommended.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 05/06/2003