On 30/08/2012 10:21, News wrote:
Optimist wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:46:05 +0100, "News"
wrote:

77002 wrote:
On Aug 23, 1:33 pm, "It's only me"
wrote:
Proper urban development will beget more business rates and
council

tax, so there is local government interest here. As more homes are

built the market loosens and becomes more affordable.

If there is an oversupply of offices and shops, rents and therefore
rateable values will decrease. There is no sense in having empty
commercial properties unless rents are rising quickly. Remember
Centre Point?

Centre Point was a ploy to not pay any taxes to the council as the
building was not completed and waiting because the land prices were
rocketing because the boom in the economy meant community created
economic growth soaked into the land and crystallized as land
values. That is where land values come from - economic community
activity not the landowner. In short the landowner was freeloading.

Unless the UK indulges in another round of building "new towns", the
national housing shortage is actually only solvable at the local
level. In other words build homes where the people and jobs are, or
move the people and jobs.

I lot of sense in that. But the archaic Stalinist Town & Country
Planning act prevents building on green fields. Only 7.5% of the
UKs land mass is settled and that figure includes green spaces and
gardens which brings masonry on land to about 2.5%. Ignore
right-wing propaganda that we are concreting over the Countryside.

England already has over 400 people per square kilometre, one of the
most crowded in Europe.

That figure is meaningless. Again... Only 7.5% of the UKs land mass is
settled and that figure includes green spaces and gardens which brings
masonry on land to about 2.5%.

As we have to import much of our food, we
are vulnerable to worldwide food shortages.

There are never world wide food shortage, only regional crop failures.
Fast ships mean we can import food from around the world preventing
famines.

Far too much land is given over to agriculture, about 78%, which only
accounts for about 2.5% of the UK economy. This poor performing over
subsidised industry is absorbing land that could be better used
economically in commerce and for much needed spacious higher quality
homes for the population. Much of the land is paid to remain idle out of
our taxes. The UK could actually abandon most of agriculture and import
most of its food, as food is obtainable cheaper elsewhere.

50% of the EU budget is allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP). CAP is supporting a lifestyle of a very small minority of country
dwellers in a poor performing industry. In effect that is its prime
function.

The city of Sheffield, a one industry city of steel, was virtually
killed by allowing imports of cheaper steel from abroad. This created
great misery and distress to its large population. Yet agriculture is
subsidised to the hilt having land allocated to it which clearly can be
better utilised for the greater good of British society.

The justification for subsidising agriculture is that we need to eat.
We also need steel and cars in our modern society, yet the auto and
steel industries were allowed to fall away to cheaper competition from
abroad, and especially the Far East. Should taxpayers money be propping
up an economically small industry that consumes vast tracts of land that
certainly could be better used? What is good for the goose is good for
the gander.

The overall agricultural subsidy is over £5 billion per year. This is
£5 billion to an industry whose total turnover is only £15 billion per
annum. Unbelievable. This implies huge inefficiency in the agricultural
industry, about 40% on the £15 billion figure. Applied to the acres
agriculture absorbs, and approximately 16 million acres are uneconomic.
Apply real economics to farming and you theoretically free up 16 million
acres, which is near 27% of the total UK land mass.

This is land that certainly could be put to better use for the
population of the UK. Allowing the population to spread out and live
amongst nature is highly desirable and simultaneously lowering land
prices. This means lower house prices which the UK desperately needs.
Second country homes could be within reach of much of the population, as
in Scandinavia, creating large recreation and construction industries,
and keeping the population in touch with the nature of their own
country. In Germany the population have access to large forests which
are heavily used at weekends. Forests and woods are ideal for recreation
and absorb CO2 cleaning up the atmosphere. Much land could be turned
over to public forests.

Over-development is
causing problems with the hydrology, as heavy rainfall is flushed out
to sea rather than recharge the aquifers.

As only 2.5% of the UK has masonry on it that is far fetched to say the
least. New developments have separate rainwater drains that feed water
that is used for potable uses.

We should be making sure that empty homes are brought back into
occupation (compulsorily after a year, say),

Land Valuation Taxation does that - payable land only not the building,
even if a building is not on the plot. Harrisburg, and other towns and
cities in the USA, cleared up derelict buildings that way bringing them
back into use.

Harrisburg....
http://www.labourland.org/downloads/...chapters/3.pdf
"Furthermore, crime has fallen by 58 per cent, and the number of fires
has been reduced by 76 per cent, which the authorities say is due to
more employment opportunities, and the elimination of derelict sites,
making vandalism less likely."

and discourage the
growth of population by limiting child benefit

Social engineering. Hitler did that. It is best to have a self
controlling economic system - Geonomics.

Like in the Middle Ages, when the population was controlled by hunger,
disease and hanging.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman