Making a ruin into something habitable.

Page 6 of 7  
IMM wrote:

I don't follow.
First, we need a definition of large lanowners. How much land do you have to own to be one of those.
Second, how is it to their benefit? Please explain slowly and clearly.
--
Grunff


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You forget who you're asking. ;-)
--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Plowman wrote:

The thing is, despite his many rambling threads on the subject, I still don't actually get the crux of his argument.
So I'd like him to slowly and clearly explain it to this totally non-politically inclined engineer type.
Let's see what comes up.
--
Grunff


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No I don't either. Much of this 70% is farmland/forest which wouldn't be overly useful for development even if the NIMBYs would allow it. He may be right that the planning process works to the benefit of people (developers) who own the land that is in the right place, but I suspect that these people are not those that make up this "1% own 70%" set.
tim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You should do as we are all, including you, are being shafted.

They (1947 T&C planning act) were put together by the Council for the Protection of Rural England. A group of people who are large landowners, founded by large landowners. Their recommendations were foolishly accepted by a "Labour" government. And a "Labour" government has just passed a law to built to an even higher density making matters even worse.
The planning laws keep towns people out of the countryside, where the large landowners for centuries have generated vast amounts wealth to the detriment of the masses.
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So that's about 6,666 acres each on average for 0.01% of the population.

And still would be if the estates were limited to 70 acres.

How big do you think an average farm should be?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a> It is. What evidence do you have on that.

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 snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

Read "Who Own Britain"

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

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.

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 ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a> Read "Who Own Britain" Don't you know the reasoning well enough to summarise?

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.

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 snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

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.

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 ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.

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 snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A world where the term "average" is understood?

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you wrote:

It is?

Hooked and trivia eh?
--
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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.

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.

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 snipped-for-privacy@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

Is the penny dropping?

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".

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.

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

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

Are you getting there?

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

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

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.

If only!

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 ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
abuse-imm (a) writes:

I would say so, yes. Theft is theft.

They are in the same boat.

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

And it is.

You should read. The problem is with both.

Are you getting there.

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

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.

You know nothing of the planning process.

You know nothing of the planning process.

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 ).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:
<snip>

Interesting stuff.
<added to Amazon basket>
--
Ben Blaney
GSF1200 VFR800 CBR600 CD200
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.