|
Keith,
Good response. Now you're answering Terrell.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:28
AM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] MORE Local
living economies
Harry,
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
|
