(Jim wrote:-) Obviously Mr. Bierce had never
seen high rise apartments. In
pretty much every place on earth there is a vacancy rate, and all that is
seperating the homeless from a vacant place to live is the money necessary
to rent/buy the place(unless they simply choose to be homeless, which means
you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink). Most of the land on earth is
uninhabited. The fact that
land is finite is not the problem.
(Jock replied:-) Yes, it is. A high rise block is only there
because the land owner permitted it to be there. Saw it as worthwhile
developing.
(Joe comments:-) The land owner nowadays has not got any exclusive
right as to what will be 'permitted' on HIS property. That, by
convention and law, will more often than not be decided by
others. He may very well want to build a highrise. There may very
well be a number of people who might benefit from there being a
highrise. But whether that highrise will be constructed, or not,
is NOT at the sole discretion of the land owner.
Most places, there are 'zoning' covernants placed on his property,
'development permits' which must be secured, and a host of other probably
well-intentioned but often inane rules and regulations which have to be
adhered to. Many of which would make sane, sensible and often
needed developments too expensive for the land owner to pursue.
To give you one 'personal' example, if I as the owner of a semi-rural
property on which is located a sawmill and lumberyard, a business I
established before the advent and enforcement of much of the above, now wanted
to construct another shed to help maintain my lumber stock in an
'un-weathered' condition while waiting for it to sell, the present costs of
the all the 'permitting processes' required would quite
easily exceed the construction costs of the shed itself.
And all that might be spent just trying to secure 'permission' for
what I want to do on 'my' land would be completely for naught if , at any
stage of the process, someone in 'authority' says, "No." Yet
the taxes on my land aren't reduced because I've been inhibited from adding
something to it which would allow greater efficiency in my earning the income
I need to pay those taxes. Likely, they'll continue to go 'up'.
I'm very much afraid, Jock, that I don't have access to the 'capital',
and expertise at political wire-pulling an entity like "Home Depot" does to
overcome anything adverse to their plans. They can 'jump through all the
(regulatory) hoops'. Or oftentimes have them lowered or broadened so they can.
I can't. Yet they still don't, or won't, stock many of the
items I do, nor provide as fast an access to them as I can. So is their
'use' of land more 'efficient' than mine? How is this to be
determined when the process that might lead to its determination is not really
'market' driven, but arbitrary?
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
