You do take on so.
I don't want to live near a cement factory, or a dump, so I won't. Nor, I suspect would most people.
I don't want to tax land. I would like to collect land Rent in place of other taxes because Rent is created by the local community. so it's fair to recapture it for community revenue. However, there aren't likely to be many people living on a dump, or by a cement factory, so there isn't likely to be much Rent.
Had you not been wasting your time on such silly things as opportunity costs and demand/supply curves, you would have perhaps known of these things. It's called reality.
But, I keep forgetting. To a neo-Classical economist reality is a special case.
Harry
---------------------------------------------------------
Arthur wrote:
I guess you are saying yes to the cement factory and filling in the local canyons to make more living space, more land that can be taxed.
arthur
-----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard Arthur,
Really!
There is all the difference in the world between keeping pig farms away from residential areas - a completely sensible policy approved by everyone - and social engineering.
If people want a Starbucks or a McDonalds - shown by the fact that they patronize them -how dare other people use the force of law to stop them from enjoying themselves.
As those sugary drinks are not particularly good for you, perhaps we should zone them out of the supermarkets in our community. On the other hand, there are those books by Balzac in the library . . . . ?
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur wrote:
>So we can relax zoning in your area and install the cement factory next door >to where you live. Or perhaps you would be more comfortable with a pig farm. >Or perhaps a garbage dump to fill up and "reclaim" one of the canyons in >your area. > >What is the alternative to zoning? You benefit from it now, why not extend >it? > >arthur > >-----Original Message----- >From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:27 PM >To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Futurework] Local living economies] > > >Arthur, > >Putting criminal behavior on one side and concentrating on our ordinary >behavior, we can be sure of two things. > >If a law tells us we must do something, it's because we don't want to do it. > >If a law tells us we must not do something, it's because we want to do it. > >As I've said, I can't remember when I ever went into a MccDonalds. I think >I went into a Starbucks once with someone, but I didn't buy anything. > >Yet people do use them. What constitutional right does one person have to >stop another from using a Starbucks? > >You can call it Mature Growth Zoning, but it sounds very much like Busybody >Interference. Of course, such restrictions are often imposed to keep >undesirables out of an area (that's people not like us) . After all, we >must keep things cosy for the better heeled. > >But, of course, that couldn't be the case. > >Harry >-------------------------------------------------------- > >Arthur wrote: > > >I like the way size is being controlled. Through legislation. Call it > >Mature Growth Zoning, but zoning it is and all of us are used to living >with > >zoning regulations of one sort or another. > > > >Zoning can also apply to proliferation of Starbucks and McDonald's, >although > >here I think the constitutional lawyers would be brought into the fray. > > > >arthur > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:07 AM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: Stephen Straker > >Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Futurework] Local living economies] > > > > > >Stephen, there are organizations collecting and distributing this > >accountability data for citizens and land use development professionals to > >use. More important however is that the general public is realizing that >it > >is not an inevitability that Corporate Rule will prevail. Maybe this is >the > >Second American Revolution, where independent-minded people realize that > >they don't really have to be trapped in an imperial corporate state. The > >point here is NOT to overthrow large multinational corporations, but to > >provide a viable ALTERNATIVE, and the role of public policy in the last > >decades has clearly been on the side of the corporation. The Movement, if > >it can be called that, is calling for leveling the playing field. How old > >fashioned American does that sound? > > > >As I read the literature and explore websites, just as I would on anything > >else new to learn, I am trying to differentiate between the essence and > >those who take it too seriously. Building alternatives to runaway >corporate > >ownership appears to be focusing on issues of scale, issues of place and > >issues of ownership. The Old Paradigm of "grow or die" and accepting that > >all competition is fair and/or healthy, is in decline. More companies are > >examining business practices with a "triple bottom line" - profits, people > >and planet - for a healthier measurement of performance representing all > >stakeholders. Even megastores have to be interested in their long term > >market viability in an area in order to realize a sustainable growth. ILSR > >is promoting their The New Rules web site, described as a "searchable > >collection of public policies that support strong local economies" and >their > >banner reads Designing Rules as if Community Matters. (see >www.newrules.org) > > > >Again, according to the Institute for Self-Reliance and others like it, > >there are dozens of cities banning stores over a certain size: Easton, MD > >capped stores to 65,000 sq ft (about half the size of a typical Home >Depot). > >Hood River, Oregon, just up the Columbia River from me, set 50,000 sq ft > >(it's hilly and relies on one interstate for traffic and swamped with wind > >surfers most of the year now but already famous for apples and pears). > >Boxborough, MA set 25,00 sq ft (which is smaller than most Borders > >bookstores), indicating that depending on the size of the town smaller > >limits can be achieved. Chain stores are taking notice, of course. Some > >are interested in a less centralized approach. Here in Gresham where I >live > >there is a new modified mixed use retail project that has brought >developers > >and professionals from all over the country to see for themselves. We have > >light rail and this has contributed to the success of these smaller, > >walk-around developments. > > > >Other communities are banning formula retail like McDonald's, tying future > >expansion to per capita growth. Some object to the proliferation of a > >Starbucks on every other corner, some want more variety in their > >architectural sense of place. These are not outright bans to prohibit >their > >operating business, but insisting on diversity. Some might also say it is > >insisting on fair commerce, a novel idea, wouldn't you say? Other > >communities are actively promoting local merchants first. Boulder, CO, >Salt > >Lake City, Santa Fe are a few out here. Others are creating regional > >alliances, such as the Cape Cod Commission. > > > >Of course, some will consider this anti-American. I see it as just another > >exercise in independence and diversity and very much in the American >spirit. > >When one force tends to dominate and suffocate another, there is change all > >right, but that change may be short lived. My interest, as a non > >businesswoman, is the re emergence of the human spirit towards community. > >The human spirit does not want to be suppressed forever and will seek to > >breathe freely, seek the light and grow. > > > >KWC > > > >See: American Independent Business Alliance @ www.amiba.net > > Business Alliance for Local Living Economies @ > >www.livingeconomies.org > > Council of Independent Restaurants of America @ www.ciraonline.org > > National Main Street Center @ www.mainst.org > > Sprawl Busters @ www.sprawl-busters.com > > > >SS: > > This is excellent stuff. And yet, Arthur is > > completly right - people "vote" for these things > > whenever they're made available. The only cases of > > opposition I know of - such as the town of > > Greenfield, Massachusetts - occur *before* the > > fact when political leadership takes a stand, such > > as a city council refusing a zoning or building > > permit. > > > > It occurs to me that in this as in so many things > > there is not a proper ACCOUNTING. The reason > > WalMart has low prices is because you're paying > > for that propane barbecue everywhere else where > > its cost is disguised (as Stacy & co. say, in > > property taxes, etc.). > > > > I'd like to see some creative accounting put out > > that shows, say, > > - the real "price" of a propane barbecue at > > Wlamart > > - the real "price" of a litre/gallon of gasoline > > > > This would be, like, a progressive rebuttal to the > > right-wing think tanks - like BC's Fraser > > Institute - that have learned to garner publicity > > with dishonest crap like TAX FREEDOM DAY (when to > > much fanfare on the day they put out a > > news-release explaining that "until today > > everything you have earned has been taken by the > > government; only today do you get to keep your own > > earnings ..." I always want to say - OK you > > buggers, have your tax freedom on 1 January and > > we'll follow you around and BILL you whenever you > > cost us money ... rise & shine! - flushing the > > toilet - 3�, brushing your teeth - 1�, use of > > sidewalk - 4�, traffic light - 1� ... and so on. > > My goodness those guys make me mad. > > > > Has anyone done this proper kind of "social cost" > > accounting? > > > > THEN people would have a better idea of whether > > they're saving money or whether the convenience is > > worth it when they choose Home Depot. > > > > Stephen Straker
**************************************************** 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: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003
