Making a ruin into something habitable.

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.

Reply to
IMM
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
Richard Caley

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.

Reply to
IMM

I have.

I do.

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

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.

More like an uphill slope.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Reply to
IMM

What - to be then owned by different individuals?

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

Reply to
Dave Plowman

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

FWIW my retirement home (I hope) will be a 25th floor flat in Melbourne city centre: 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.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

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

I wish we all had two houses.

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

Reply to
IMM

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

Reply to
IMM

That is nice to know.

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

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

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

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.

Reply to
IMM

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.

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.

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?

That's doing exactly the same thing by stealth.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Reply to
Andy Hall

The law can always be changed.

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

It can be worked out.

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

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

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

That would clear happen.

That would not happen.

Yes.

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

And what might that be?

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

Reply to
IMM

They are the "minority". get it?

Reply to
IMM

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

Reply to
Stephen Gower

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

Reply to
IMM

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. Bastard! :-)

Reply to
Richard Caley

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

Reply to
Stephen Gower

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

Reply to
Peter Ashby

Possibly, but not very likely.

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

Easy to say. Impossible to do.

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.

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

The trouble is that it really isn't.

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

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

Revolution, not evolution - you said it yourself.

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

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Reply to
Andy Hall

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

Reply to
Steve

Nonsense!

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.

It was owned by the state and used by all.

So you condone theft.

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

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

The Tory Little Middle Englander coming out.

Go away!

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

Reply to
IMM

HomeOwnersHub website 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.