Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 65 of 171

Thread: Housing Mistakes

  1. #61
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Perhaps if time limits were put on making places habitable,
    Just used Land Valuation Taxation as it is self regulating. No snooping Council employees are needed.

    How Harrisburg in the US was transformed through a Land Value Tax

    In the United States, many local authorities, including Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, operate a so-called split-rate tax system, in which buildings and land are taxed separately. Some bias it towards buildings and others towards land. The evidence is that the more it is biased towards land, the more this benefits the local economy – which is what would be predicted by the theory of land value tax – because the more that land is taxed the more this provides an incentive to invest capital on the land in the form of buildings and other economic activities. That is precisely what happened in Harrisburg after the city authorities more than doubled the tax rate on land, while reducing the rate on buildings, such that the rate for land was three times that for buildings.

    In 1982, before the change, Harrisburg, with a population of 52,000, was listed as the second most run-down city in the US. Since then, following the change, empty sites and buildings have been re-developed, with the number of vacant sites by 2004 down by 85 per cent. The city authorities have issued over 32,000 building permits, representing nearly $4 billion of new investment – nearly 2,000 were issued in 2004 alone. Over 5,000 housing units have been newly constructed or rehabilitated, and the number of businesses has jumped from 1,908 to 8,864, with unemployment down by 19 per cent. 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.

    They list 40 other positive benefits, including much improved public amenities. More recently, the bias towards tax on land is now six to one compared with three to one originally. This will likely further enhance the trends from which the city has already benefited. Meanwhile, the heightened economic activity has increased public revenues, not only from land and buildings, but also from other taxes, thus benefiting public services. And it has increased quite dramatically both the value of land and that of buildings, from around $400 million in 1982, in today’s prices, to $1.7 billion now. This has enabled the authorities to reduce the rate of tax on both land and buildings. Not surprisingly, this system of taxation has been politically popular, with Mayor Steven Reed Jr being re-elected continuously since 1982.

    One constraint has been the fact that 47 per cent of the land in Harrisburg is occupied by state, federal, educational and charitable institutions, which, anomalously, are exempt by State law from property taxes. However, some of that lost revenue has been clawed back through charges on water, gas and electricity supplies, which are publicly owned – perhaps another lesson that we can learn from Harrisburg.
    Meanwhile, another city in Pennsylvania, namely Pittsburgh, has gone in the opposite direction with its split-rate tax system. In 2000, it reduced the rate of tax on land to the same lower rate as that for buildings. Voters were persuaded that they would pay less tax. In fact, for most, taxes have increased, because the council has had to raise the tax rate on buildings to make up for the revenue lost through lowering the tax on land. Within just the first two years, it led to new construction falling by 21 per cent, and businesses moving out of town on a regular basis – which, again, is what would be predicted by land tax theory.

    Land Value Taxation made Johannesburg into an African Super-City

    Johannesburg, South Africa has no tax on buildings. The entire property tax is on land. Mason Gaffney, a highly respected land economist and Professor of Economics at UC Riverside, visited Johannesburg. This is what he said about it.
    "The miracle of Johannesburg: Jo-burg is a Bootstrap City. It should have died when its gold mines played out, like a proper mining boomtown; instead it remains as the economic capital of its nation and half a continent.

    "Johannesburg defies most laws of urban economics, e.g. that mines create no great cities. Explainers still site the mines, but its mines have played out; it should now be a ghost town. It has no harbor, no water transportation, nor even any gravity water supply. It is, in fact, on a ridge top, the Rand or "reef," at an elevation of 5,000 ft. Unlike Chicago or Boston, it has no sunburst of rail lines, except perhaps what it has attracted itself. It is "on the main rail line," Explainers say, but so are 1000 miles of other sites. The natural site lacks outstanding amenities, and certainly can't hold a candle to Cape Town. Jo-burg has no governmental economic base. Surrounding farmland is poor. Why Johannesburg? Why is it the largest city, the center of finance, industry, commerce, and international air travel? As a public finance economist I may overvalue incentive taxation, but Jo-burg has it. The property tax is on site value only, and at a high rate: they tell me it is 4%. This is what makes Jo-burg distinctive. Challenge and response: Jo-burg had to do something right in order to survive, and that is what it did. It not only survived, it became and remains Number One. Give me a better explanation and I'll back off. I haven't heard one yet."

    Advertisements -------

    If Jo-Burg can do with any natural waterways, Liverpool can be like Barcelona.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  2. #62
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    No, the planners do force people to live in certain locations - in the US it's called Planning and Zoning - I'm sure the UK has a similar law. It's also enforced in the longer term by where, and what type, of infrastructure is built.

    The moral values of Green based on carbon is still up for debate and deserves it's own thread. Note how every solution proposed so far involves taxes flowing the the govt.?

    I'll just leave with this - from a mere 40 years ago, a drop in the time bucket compared to climate predictions
    Zoning laws may dictate what goes where but I suspect nobody in the US (or here) is forcing people to live in any specific zone.

    ***

    I don't think there's any mileage in a further debate on the morality of global warming. This 1975 Newsweek piece seems just a little out of step with the 40 years of research and mapping since. 40 years is a drop in a geological bucket but it's a tremendous amount of science in human terms. Prior to the 70s, the topic was unheard of (or rather restricted to Science 'Fiction'). So this piece is more or less at the start of the discussion. If the shrinking ice caps is not evidence enough...

    And the US in particular has to recognise that they have a per capita carbon footprint several times that of most European countries (last time I looked 800%, yes, eight times that of the UK). Given that the built environment has such a marked effect on our energy consumption (about 50% in creating it and 25% in travelling between various bits of it), that has to be down to both the base climate, space expectations and the resultant energy consumption of individual buildings (bigger/ac controlled buildings) and, the huge distances (from a European perspective) in travelling home to work and the dominance of the motor car.

    Counterbalance that with the power and influence of a dollar-based global oil economy and it's small wonder that the planners who are advocating more compact cities meet with such resistance.

    ***

    You may find this interesting: Guardian: Sustainable Cities (in the US) 2009

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------



    Quote Originally Posted by Ged View Post
    Perhaps if time limits were put on making places habitable, after all, it's not a million years ago it was a nursery, passing stringent regulations no doubt to be able to be one. After which there would be penalties with the most extreme being a handover to the council as it's they after all who take the criticism of thoroughfares into the city looking grubby and uninviting. Maybe a cpo based on its dilapidated condition then the likes of Maghull developments wouldn't just let them fall down so they can then build anew - without the VAT penalty etc. Look what happened to Jamica House on the corner of Dale st/Vernon st and what also happened not long ago to the oldest property on Dale st on the corner of Cheapside.
    What would a time limit change? If the money's not there, it's not there.

    Maghull Developments or anyone else like them do not sit there with a bag of cash in the bank just so they can leave properties empty. Every empty property they hold is costing them money (down the drain and to the bank) - without income to compensate for it.

    The idea that this is paid for by increased value (land-banking - in Everton...) or a saving on VAT is not sustainable.

    Council do not have the money for CPOs of un-viable properties. And what would it buy them? A pain in the financial neck and complaints from the tax payer (about empty properties and lack of progress such as on the Newheartlands - see above).

    The reason for empty properties is lack of customers to live or work in them and it hurts right where it hurts - in the back pocket. There's no incentive to hang on to empty property here.

    A 'use it or lose it' policy is going to have an opposite effect to that intended. Why would anyone buy an empty property if they're only going to get kicked in the teeth a year down the line when tenants couldn't be found?

    What if anyone inherited an old and tired property from their mum or dad and they could find anyone to take it? Would you give them a penalty for that? The poll tax riots would pale into insignificance.

  3. #63
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Zoning laws may dictate what goes where but I suspect nobody in the US (or here) is forcing people to live in any specific zone.



    No, not forcing, but they do restrict where and how...


    ***

    I don't think there's any mileage in a further debate on the morality of global warming. This 1975 Newsweek piece seems just a little out of step with the 40 years of research and mapping since. 40 years is a drop in a geological bucket but it's a tremendous amount of science in human terms. Prior to the 70s, the topic was unheard of (or rather restricted to Science 'Fiction'). So this piece is more or less at the start of the discussion. If the shrinking ice caps is not evidence enough...

    And the US in particular has to recognise that they have a per capita carbon footprint several times that of most European countries (last time I looked 800%, yes, eight times that of the UK). Given that the built environment has such a marked effect on our energy consumption (about 50% in creating it and 25% in travelling between various bits of it), that has to be down to both the base climate, space expectations and the resultant energy consumption of individual buildings (bigger/ac controlled buildings) and, the huge distances (from a European perspective) in travelling home to work and the dominance of the motor car.

    Counterbalance that with the power and influence of a dollar-based global oil economy and it's small wonder that the planners who are advocating more compact cities meet with such resistance.

    I beg to disagree, all you have is article quotes and reports from biased (ie, have an interest in the outcome) sources. As an example, once you create an organization called "Office of Climate Change (OCC)" do you think they will regard anything that might hurt their existance as real?

    As an engineer I have always believed in numbers and actual data, something sorely missing in this debate.

    Given that recent satellite data is more accurate, and also more global, and has been working for 17 years I'll just present this -


  4. #64
    Member Peter McGurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
    No, not forcing, but they do restrict where and how...

    I beg to disagree, all you have is article quotes and reports from biased (ie, have an interest in the outcome) sources. As an example, once you create an organization called "Office of Climate Change (OCC)" do you think they will regard anything that might hurt their existance as real?

    As an engineer I have always believed in numbers and actual data, something sorely missing in this debate.

    Given that recent satellite data is more accurate, and also more global, and has been working for 17 years I'll just present this...
    I'm sure that you can live just where you like, where you can get to work within reach and where you can afford - just like us all.

    ***

    I included an item for interest only. I haven’t provided any material is support of CO2 as a cause of global warming here. To attempt to do so would be unrealistic.

    Nevertheless it would be un-contestable from such evidence that cities and compact cities at that, produce less CO2 emissions per capita and I assume you do not contest it. I also assume that you do not contest whether global warming exists or not.

    However I assume that you do contest that the one causes the other.

    There is of course a wealth of research to the contrary and not just from jumped-up self interest groups (whether OCC is one of them or not)

    ***

    You have presented a graph without explanation of the basis of its derivation with a simple assertion in the legend as proof of that assertion and the ‘numbers and data... sorely missing in this debate’. A suggestion no less biased than any organisation you would condemn just for its name.

    Even so and accepting the graph for the moment, it does indicate a continued increase of both temperature and CO2 levels at the same time although it does indicate a decrease in acceleration of increase in temperature. Perhaps (as is very likely) there is another phenomenon that is not measured, which would account for that slower increase, albeit still an increase. Melting of the ice caps perhaps? But that would be too neat. Perhaps not.

    ***

    In terms of bias however it is interesting to note that those countries with vested interest in the continued reliance on higher energy consumption do tend to stand about-face to those who do not.

    Australia it seems being the one exception - as the worst per capita offender (by dint of climate, distances and low population - perhaps a bit like Arizona) and the one most prepared to do something about it.

  5. #65
    Senior Member az_gila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    603
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Australia it seems being the one exception - as the worst per capita offender (by dint of climate, distances and low population - perhaps a bit like Arizona) and the one most prepared to do something about it.

    ------------------------

    Yes, and another example of data being "corrected" (fudged?) to set up a govt. policy...

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/

    The debate would be a lot more robust if the data collectors actually released the original data, and told you what corrections were performed and why. As of this time they all regard their data as propretary and won't share what has been done to it - even though most of the data has been collected on govt. money.

    Until the data is open I'm afraid I just can't agree that the "sceince is settled".

    Concensus is not a scientific proof in any field except climateology.

    Next week I'm a judge at the local Southern Arizona Science Fair - I bet none of the kids present concensus as part of their exhibits... The kids know better

    I do apologize for the picture with no details. A more complete version is here -

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/t...edictions.html

    The better description I still need to find, but was based on past data, IPCC predictions and whether the Earth has a positive or negative feedback to climate forcing functions. The IPCC assumes negative feedback to CO2, but real data shows a positive feedback. This makes a heck of a difference to the 100 years out "we are all in trouble" prediction.

    [Joke]Having spent two winter months over the last two years in Liverpool, I think 1 or 2 degrees C rise might actually be good - heck it would even reduce CO2 generation due to smaller heating bills... [/Joke]

Page 13 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terraced Housing In Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2013, 09:15 AM
  2. Court Housing in Liverpool
    By Bob Edwards in forum Bob Edwards' Liverpool Picture Book
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2012, 11:41 AM
  3. Eldon Grove Housing
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 11:31 PM
  4. Insanitary Housing Images
    By Kev in forum In My Liverpool Home
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-07-2009, 02:37 PM
  5. cathedral &housing
    By gregs dad in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68