[discuss-dan] Buying versus Rent Strike in Denver

[Allen Butcher <allenbutcher@netzero.net>]

Seems like there are at least two issues in jb's post:  owning vs. not 
owning land, and squatting empty buildings

Although I think that in general I appreciate jb's assertion with regard to 
a dislike for private land (I lived communally for 12 years, after all, and 
may again), when one goes so far as to say "we must abolish the very 
concept of private land ..." one is no longer merely stating a personal 
preference for how one would like to live, but instead is essentially 
telling other people how they must live.

I would most emphatically "disagree entirely" with jb on this point.  How a 
government would go about abolishing private land is not even a topic that 
I care to discuss.  People must have the freedom to own land, simply 
because taking away that freedom would not result in peace and harmony but 
a whole lot of rage!

However, there is another point to be made here, and that is the issue of 
"ownership."  Even Native American Tribes had their own territories, ever 
changing, perhaps, but the fact is that people have always claimed some 
kind of "ownership" to the space they inhabited.   I really think that jb's 
rather simplistic value statement has to be qualified.  With the closing of 
the Frontier, what, some 150 years ago? there is no land in this country 
that is not owned by someone or some organization.  So I would like to 
request of jb a little more clarity and explanation.  As there is no such 
thing in this country as land that is not "owned," and if you dislike 
private ownership, I assume then that what you advocate is forms of common 
ownership or collective ownership of land.

(And yes, I do make a distinction between the two:  in true "common 
ownership" when members leave they take with them no cashed-out value on 
their share of the equity in the land, in contrast in "collective 
ownership" when people leave the community they do take out a cash share of 
the equity -- examples of the former are communal organizations like 
Catholic monasteries and Federation communities, an example of the latter 
are nearly all cohousing communities).

As I said, I personally agree with the idea of common ownership of land if 
a group of people decide that they want to own land in common.  And that is 
precisely why I have gotten involved in real estate finance, so that I can 
help groups of people purchase land and hold it in common.  I invite anyone 
interested in such a community building plan to contact me.  And of course, 
trying to build a community business through building a mortgage brokerage, 
I welcome anyone contacting me who wants to buy even private property, or 
remortgage what they've got.  Currently there are two of us working 
together in this brokerage, and we are associated with a successful office, 
and I hope to make it a community-owned or worker-owned business (yes, I do 
make a distinction between these two terms....)

Since I've gotten started on this topic I might explain a little more about 
forms of common ownership.  There is actually a very good way to share an 
aspect of land ownership, and I think that this is a form that could be 
imposed on everyone, through the system of land taxation.  The reason why 
owning land is a means to wealth is because people and corporations are 
permitted to pocket the UNEARNED INCOME from land.  Land creates wealth not 
only by natural resources, but also by location with respect to proximity 
to people, namely markets, and governmental services.  These are all forms 
of wealth that come to the landowner that truly ought to be shared, because 
these forms of wealth are created by nature (natural resources) or by all 
of us, the population and the government we build.  The way for all of us 
to share this UNEARNED INCOME, rather than let landowners take it, is by 
taxing the land value, which in economics is called LAND RENT.  It was 
Henry George who championed this program over a hundred years ago, and the 
land value tax is used in many cities around the world, in the US it is 
mainly in Pennsylvania and maybe a few other cities in mid-Atlantic 
states.  The idea is to increase the tax on LAND VALUE and reduce the tax 
to zero on the IMPROVEMENTS or buildings on the land.  This would mean that 
home owners would pay less tax and commercial property owners would pay 
higher taxes, thus taking the UNEARNED INCOME from landowners and giving it 
to the people.

This is a method of respecting common ownership that has been proven (in PA 
and elsewhere) to be a viable economic reform and tax reform strategy, that 
actually supports the local economy (mostly because it removes a 
disincentive--the tax on improvements--which results in businesses 
expanding their economic activity).  I'm currently planning a campaign to 
advocate the land value tax through the Denver Green Party, and the Green 
Economy Committee.  Starting to work in real estate finance will also put 
me in a place where I hope to encourage legislative advocacy for this tax 
reform strategy.

One of the effects of the land value tax, however, is the reduction of the 
numbers of vacant properties.  Remember, someone still owns those 
properties.  If they were taxed on the basis of the value of the land 
beneath them, those land speculators who sit on those properties 
anticipating future increase in value would have to use them or sell them 
in order to pay the increased land tax.  (Remember, with the land value tax 
it doesn't matter how new or derilect is the building, they are taxed on 
the land value.)  The land value tax reduces the number of vacant buidings.

The benefits of this is partly the reduction in the trend toward sprawl, 
since the land value tax does not permit urban blight, but provides an 
incentive to continually improve the city center.  Therefore, there would 
be fewer buildings for jb's preference for squatting.

Although I follow jb's logic in matching homeless people with vacant 
buildings, I tend to think of that as a bandaid solution, not one that 
addresses the root causes of the problems of vacant buildings and homeless 
people.  I understand how essential squatting is to so many people in 
places like New York City and Detroit, and maybe even in some parts of 
Denver, and I'm sure that for those in such situations building community 
is essential to their survival.  Yet to get to the root causes of 
homelessness there are a lot of factors to take into consideration, and I'm 
not going to say that I have all the answers, just some of them.  No matter 
what, there may always be homeless people ....

My focus is upon helping people to build community.  And in fact, my 
solution to most of the world's problems is to build community.  There is a 
time and place for demonstrations and letter writing campaigns and all 
that, but building and maintaining community requires a constant, 
deliberate effort.  The importance of this is because it is from 
"community" that we gain the support and resources needed to carry on those 
many campaigns.  And the second most important element to the stability and 
longevity of a community, after people, is land.

To revisit the original subject of this thread, I personally advocate the 
sharing of real estate equity (whether collectively or communally) in place 
of the landlord-tenant relationship, and so tend to feel that a rent strike 
is not a solution but a bandaid.  Rent strikes are certainly 
attention-getting, and maybe in some cases a necessary short-term solution, 
but not a long-term answer to the problem.
Allen


At 03:57 PM 02/04/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>i dissagree entirely allen. if we are goign to build to a world based on 
>cooperation and sharing..etc to own land would definatley be step 
>backwards. we must abolish the very concept of private land, and "owning 
>it." instead for an intentional community, i believe squating is alot more 
>effective, and ideal. That is if our values truely are for equal 
>communtiy. there are many buildings that are not being used that already 
>exist. there are many people without homes. their very existance is enough 
>logic for their occupation.


Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/_/_/981552512/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

This is a non-secured list and it should be always assumed that all posts can be monitored and read by others. Exercise appropriate discretion.
All posts represent the opinion, and are the copyright, of the originator and not that of DAN or the list administrators. No material may be reprinted without prior permission of the copyright holder.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
discuss-dan-unsubscribe@egroups.com