Housing Mistakes

[Big where it matters]

...

If nobody wants to buy a place or they haven’t got the money to do it up themselves or no-one is interesting in living or working there, there’s nothing anyone can do to change that (whether it’s owned by the council or not).

You can’t 'easily solve' the situation if no-one wants to buy it or live in it. You’re stuck with it and if you’ve just bought it (or inherited it), it hurts.

The existing law gives too many rights to property owners and doesn't force them to display civic responsibility in how they manage their property. It needs to be changed to include a legal requirement that forces property owners to maintain their properties to a reasonable standard. If people can't afford to do so then they can manage this by selling their property rather than allowing it to deteriorate further with all the associated knock-on effects.

Because housing is a social resource the law should also be changed so that anyone who owns a second property and keeps it empty in order to milk its value will be very heavily taxed during the period it's empty, and there needs to be an up-to-date register of who owns what so an inability to act can't be blamed on not knowing who to act against.

Liverpool has a large number of people who are owners of smallish terraced houses who are caught in a trap if their area becomes a dumping ground for problem families or has too many poorly maintained properties that bring about a reduction in house values. There isn't anywhere they can go unless they have the kind of salary that enables a choice to be made.

Owning and managing property is a social responsibility and this needs to be more strongly emphasised and policed. We live in culture that celebrates using property as a vehicle to increase personal wealth/status regardless of the price others have to pay.

[Waterways]

The existing law gives too many rights to property owners and doesn't force them to display civic responsibility in how they manage their property.

That is clearly true. The law does gives too many rights to property owners. Law on maintaining properties rented out to a minimum standard reasonable standard are lacking.

Using Land Valuation Taxation Tax (LVT), a tax on the value of the land only, whether a building is on it or not, solves all. If values rise one year, so does the tax, if it falls, so does the tax. It is auto adjusting. LVT clears up derelict buildings and plots as full tax is due on the land. Liverpool still has WW2 bomb site in the centre, and London still has two, and Liverpool has thousands of derelict buildings too.

Second properties that are empty in order to milk its value will be taxed the full land value with LVT. There is nothing wrong with second properties as the UK is empty with only 7.5% of the land settled.

Housing is not viewed as a social resource, well most of the time it is not. It is now viewed as piece of CAPITAL. Classical economics was laid down by Adam Smith and improved by David Ricardo.

Classical economics identifies the three factors of production:

1. LABOUR - Work by people. The return of Labour is wages.
2. CAPITAL - Anything man-made. The return of Capital is profit or interest.
3. LAND (and its resources, inc water and air) - Land cannot be made, is inelastic and not made by man. The return of Land & Natural Resources is called "economic rent".

"A century ago a group of economists colluded to manipulate the
building blocks of classical economics, to protect the vital interests
of the privileged few. To do so, they had to concealed unique qualities
of one of the classic factors of production - Land."
- Fred Harrison (Economist)

The moved LAND into CAPITAL creating neo-classic economics, the one we run by now. Ever since there has been boom & busts and two world-wide crashes. Land is now treated like a washing machine - a piece of Capital.

Is LVT fair? .......
Because of differences in positional advantages, fertility, natural resources, proximity to essential infrastructure such as rapid-transit rail, etc, some locations are more desirable than others. Demand for access to these features gives land its value. Land Value Taxation, being assessed on these values, is fair in its incidence.

"When you shift taxes from working and saving to Land Values, you
get rid of the distortions that make people work less and save less. And
therefore people are operating in a more efficient fashion."
- American Professor, Nicolaus Tideman

An up-to-date register of who owns what? The Land Registry does that, but only half the land is registered. Anyone who owned land before the registry was setup was not put on, so the aristocratic landowners keep the size their lucrative acres away from prying eyes. 0.3% of the population own 70% of the land.

We clearly do live in culture that celebrates using property as a vehicle to increase personal wealth/status regardless of the price others have to pay. LVT will sort that out. The city tried but failed. We need to try harder. It is the only solution to many problems. Look back at my posts on this thread.