I agree with your comments about land value tax -- to a limited extent. Those cities that adopt it will undoubtedly have more vigorous economic development. However, there is a flaw because such cities are not closed systems. The more they become prosperous and build everywhere and then encroach on the countryside around them then the more that people from outside will migrate into the city.
The problem all over the world is that there is a tremendous population imbalance because most of the people are (or were) agricultural where large family size is necessary for seeding-harvest reasons and also support in old age. Now that agriculture is becoming more efficient (given the current cheapness of fossil fuels for tractors and the like), then huge surplus populations are making their way into cities, and also from undeveloped countries into developed countries.
It was the unfortunate development of agriculture at around 10,000BC that is the cause of overpopulation and the reason for most of human suffering today. The subsequent development of industrialisation has also been unfortunate because fossil fuels won't be able to sustain it for more than about a generation longer.
I think we might be in a paradoxical situation in a century from now. The 'developed' countries will be in a state of overpopulation and economic collapse because of its dependence on fossil fuels, while the 'undeveloped' countries (with much more sunshine per capita) will be fast developing local solar powered energy and manufacturing systems!
Keith Hudson
At 16:34 11/06/2003 -0700, you wrote:
Karen,
It's almost always the problem of high priced land.
I get a little tired of our creating a problem, then introducing legislation to ameliorate the effects. It's done all the time but that doesn't make it sensible.
One way to get all those desirable things accomplished is to get rid of the property tax and replace it with a land value tax. This squelches land speculation, which activity drives up the price of housing and encourages people to keep poor buildings around, for they look only to the bonanza of selling the land.
If they are holding a heavily taxed piece of land, their speculative hopes disappear - it's just too expensive to hold the land for the relatively small return from the building. If you've removed the present property tax, it means that putting up a good structure will not receive a penalty from the tax collector. It adds to the incentive to build.
Is everyone just too dumb to realize that if you penalize people for putting up good improvements, they are less likely to so ?
The thing is that instead of committees going through the laborious procedures of clearing something (including increasing taxes to buy out speculative landholders) the land-value tax creates a climate in which it is better to tear down the dross and erect good stuff.
Then you stand back and watch it happen.
Fifteen Pennsylvania cities do this already. All have turned around their economies for the better. The next candidate is likely to be Philadelphia, where the city Controller is advocating the change to a land-value tax. He has broad support, including the Real Estate Board. In opposition are members of the city council who represent "old Philadelphia" - that is the people who own the city.
They own 15,800 vacant lots, some 27,000 empty houses, including those where the 'homeless' have found a place to squat for free or for a small rent, 1,500 acres of vacant land and 'brown fields', and 700 empty commercial buildings.
You can add to these, many thousands of the underimproved sites I referred to above. That is, buildings in use that should be renovated - or torn down and replaced with buildings appropriate to a major city.
Yet, it's fashionable to chase after the "globalizers" (not to forget - the "corporations") - when the real problems are in our own back yards. Philadelphia has been called "BlightTown" by a local journalist, but the name could be applied to cities all over the country.
I fear that Romney wouldn't know where to start.
But now, you do!
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen wrote:
In Oregon we have had in place land use laws for almost a generation now, under the Urban Growth Boundary umbrella. You can research some of this at Metro, the regional government site @ <http://www.metro-region.org/pssp.cfm?ProgServID=3>http://www.metro-region.org/pssp.cfm?ProgServID=3. Most recently, it was decided to set aside 80,000 acres for future development over 15 years instead of piecemeal 5,000 over 5 years as before, so that developers and property owners could see a longer range picture. - KWC
Elsewhere in todays news
Six groups join forces for a war on sprawl
Alliance vows to press Romney to guide growth
By Anthony Flint, Globe Staff, 6/11/2003
Housing advocates and environmentalists have banded together to form a sweeping new political alliance to pressure the Romney administration to do something about sprawl in Massachusetts, promising to hold the governor's ''feet to the fire'' on his campaign promises to change the rules on development.
The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance is made up of six separate advocacy groups that have agreed to work together on the sprawl issue. Similar alliances have organized in states that have overhauled development rules, including Oregon, Maryland, and New Jersey.
The ''smart growth'' movement has gathered momentum around the country over the past 10 years, promoting the redevelopment of existing urban areas and transit-oriented planning to avoid the urban sprawl that comes from building on undeveloped land in suburban and rural areas accessible only by car.
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/162/metro/Six_groups_join_forces_for_a_war_on_sprawl+.shtml>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/162/metro/Six_groups_join_forces_for_a_war_on_sprawl+.shtml
First rule on Romney list -- redevelop in built-up places
By Anthony Flint, Boston Globe, 6/11/2003.
The Romney administration is quietly circulating a set of guidelines for future development in the state, which are likely to become the basis for new rules on the location and style of residential and commercial projects.
The principles also provide a glimpse of how the administration favors transit, biking, and walking over building roads, and how it intends to conserve open space, historic sites, and water supplies.
Conventional development, such as office parks off major highways, is not endorsed.
The first rule is to ''redevelop first'' -- that is, to direct growth to already built-up places. The administration also intends to support concentrated development where people can walk and that ''fosters a sense of place.''
The Office of Commonwealth Development, which is circulating the guidelines, also wants to:
1e06a9c.jpgSpread the burdens and benefits of development in an ''equitable'' fashion to ''ensure social, economic, and environmental justice.''
1e06ac4.jpgIncrease the quality and quantity of open space.
1e06aec.jpgExpand the use of renewable energy and support environmentally sensitive construction methods, or ''green building.''
1e06b14.jpgCoordinate construction and rehabilitation of new housing.
1e06b3c.jpgEmphasize transit, walking, and biking, and encourage development where ''a variety of transportation modes are available.''
1e06b64.jpgEncourage regional planning for development that considers ''the long-term costs and benefits to the larger Commonwealth.''
<http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/162/metro/First_rule_on_Romney_list_redevelop_in_built_up_places+.shtml>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/162/metro/First_rule_on_Romney_list_redevelop_in_built_up_places+.shtml
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
****************************************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
****************************************************
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
