| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 12:20 - Jun 16 with 2484 views | BerkoRanger |
+1 |  | |  |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 12:46 - Jun 16 with 2432 views | onlyrinmoray |
I visited Norway a half a dozen times when my son was working on Oslo Golf course Its a wonderful country full of brilliant ideas that looks after its people They are usually way ahead of the rest of the world. What the deputy mayor says seems a simple but fair idea, but Im sure many in London would find a problem with it, and it will drag on long after Im around |  | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 08:34 - Jun 17 with 1832 views | rsonist |
Article paywalled for me. Could someone sum it up? |  | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 09:09 - Jun 17 with 1779 views | Tonto |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 08:34 - Jun 17 by rsonist |
Article paywalled for me. Could someone sum it up? |
The Norwegian suggests that by giving the land for a peppercorn rent, the Council lets the land developed into a community asset free of charge. Its what they do in Norway.
The Council meanwhile don't want to give away land "for free" to multi millionaire football club owners. Which was part of the argument put forward by SWF of course... |  |
| |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 09:29 - Jun 17 with 1744 views | LythamR |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 09:09 - Jun 17 by Tonto |
The Norwegian suggests that by giving the land for a peppercorn rent, the Council lets the land developed into a community asset free of charge. Its what they do in Norway.
The Council meanwhile don't want to give away land "for free" to multi millionaire football club owners. Which was part of the argument put forward by SWF of course... |
pretty easy to do for a council in Norway and a good idea
much trickier for a council with very limited land and lots of demands and challenges in London |  | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 10:07 - Jun 17 with 1683 views | stevec |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 09:29 - Jun 17 by LythamR |
pretty easy to do for a council in Norway and a good idea
much trickier for a council with very limited land and lots of demands and challenges in London |
The most presumptuous notion is the Council owning the land. Or any land for that matter.
Council's receive money through Council tax (paid for by the Public) and Government funded grant (also paid for by the Public).
Perhaps the Norwegian model should be applied to all land. Land designated for general use, leased in this case to the Council for a nominal annual sum whereby they maintain it up until they find, as in this case, it is no longer viable, whereupon the land should then have a new lease drawn up, again for a nominal annual sum, whereupon the new lease owner, in this case QPR, should be given an opportunity to build their own stadium with a remit, as per the Norwegian example, to provide at least equal or improved community facilities for local people. As long as QPR are able to sustain this contract then it could remain with them up until the day they can no longer, at which point the whole plot is rebid for.
The idea that Councils can take our money and then assume the land is theirs to sell is abhorrent. |  | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 11:06 - Jun 17 with 1581 views | NW5Hoop |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 10:07 - Jun 17 by stevec |
The most presumptuous notion is the Council owning the land. Or any land for that matter.
Council's receive money through Council tax (paid for by the Public) and Government funded grant (also paid for by the Public).
Perhaps the Norwegian model should be applied to all land. Land designated for general use, leased in this case to the Council for a nominal annual sum whereby they maintain it up until they find, as in this case, it is no longer viable, whereupon the land should then have a new lease drawn up, again for a nominal annual sum, whereupon the new lease owner, in this case QPR, should be given an opportunity to build their own stadium with a remit, as per the Norwegian example, to provide at least equal or improved community facilities for local people. As long as QPR are able to sustain this contract then it could remain with them up until the day they can no longer, at which point the whole plot is rebid for.
The idea that Councils can take our money and then assume the land is theirs to sell is abhorrent. |
Why is it abhorrent? You have to explain why, you can't just say it is.
So, who do you suggest should own the freehold on land that is designated as being for the public good? Someone has to. And a council is at least answerable for its decisions. | | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 11:42 - Jun 17 with 1534 views | stevec |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 11:06 - Jun 17 by NW5Hoop |
Why is it abhorrent? You have to explain why, you can't just say it is.
So, who do you suggest should own the freehold on land that is designated as being for the public good? Someone has to. And a council is at least answerable for its decisions. |
Well why should anybody own the 'land' ?
Own the building you build on it by all means, own the right to maintain it for public good, fine with that too. But why on earth does any person or single entity need to own the land underneath it?
Ownership of land arose from a Feudal system that has only really given benefit to land owners. There is absolutely no reason why the land itself cannot be given a country wide valuation of, say, £1 a square metre.
Land could be allocated in exactly the same way it is now, without the burdensome cost of 'purchase' and the subsequent profit that makes building anything in popular cities almost unaffordable for the masses.
Not sure of your politics NW5 but if you are in any way left leaning I'd have thought you'd be in favour of this. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 13:40 - Jun 17 with 1420 views | QPR_Jim |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 11:42 - Jun 17 by stevec |
Well why should anybody own the 'land' ?
Own the building you build on it by all means, own the right to maintain it for public good, fine with that too. But why on earth does any person or single entity need to own the land underneath it?
Ownership of land arose from a Feudal system that has only really given benefit to land owners. There is absolutely no reason why the land itself cannot be given a country wide valuation of, say, £1 a square metre.
Land could be allocated in exactly the same way it is now, without the burdensome cost of 'purchase' and the subsequent profit that makes building anything in popular cities almost unaffordable for the masses.
Not sure of your politics NW5 but if you are in any way left leaning I'd have thought you'd be in favour of this. |
So it's all ownership of land you're against, not just the council or is it in some way worse if it's owned by the council?
Back to the original topic, isn't the proposal essentially what the council did for Warren Farm? Seemed to be fair objectively as we are/were bound to provide community facilities for free but not popular locally (with Brentford fans). Maybe the council are more worried about votes than what's best value. |  | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 13:51 - Jun 17 with 1395 views | Tonto |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 13:40 - Jun 17 by QPR_Jim |
So it's all ownership of land you're against, not just the council or is it in some way worse if it's owned by the council?
Back to the original topic, isn't the proposal essentially what the council did for Warren Farm? Seemed to be fair objectively as we are/were bound to provide community facilities for free but not popular locally (with Brentford fans). Maybe the council are more worried about votes than what's best value. |
different Councils:
Warren Farm is Ealing
Linford Christie is H&F | |
| |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 14:00 - Jun 17 with 1382 views | QPR_Jim |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 13:51 - Jun 17 by Tonto |
different Councils:
Warren Farm is Ealing
Linford Christie is H&F |
I was aware of that but I thought the exact councils were irrelevant. My point is the fact that Ealing can do it means that H&F should be able to do it without needing a Norwegian politician to point it out.
They should be well aware of this option but they either don't like the idea because of how the voters will perceive it or they think they can pressure us into giving them a better deal. I'm not entirely sure what H&F are thinking.
Edit: Re-reading my original post putting the names of the councils would have made it clearer. [Post edited 17 Jun 2019 14:02]
| | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 15:42 - Jun 17 with 1323 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 11:42 - Jun 17 by stevec |
Well why should anybody own the 'land' ?
Own the building you build on it by all means, own the right to maintain it for public good, fine with that too. But why on earth does any person or single entity need to own the land underneath it?
Ownership of land arose from a Feudal system that has only really given benefit to land owners. There is absolutely no reason why the land itself cannot be given a country wide valuation of, say, £1 a square metre.
Land could be allocated in exactly the same way it is now, without the burdensome cost of 'purchase' and the subsequent profit that makes building anything in popular cities almost unaffordable for the masses.
Not sure of your politics NW5 but if you are in any way left leaning I'd have thought you'd be in favour of this. |
Welcome Comrade Steve!
 |  | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 15:59 - Jun 17 with 1305 views | philc |
The proposal from the Norwegian does seem like a good idea, although I would like the arrangement to be for more than 40 years.
I know I have posted this before, but I do feel that the Council have an over inflated idea of how much the land is worth. If the land is of restricted use, then there is very limited value in it to a developer, and if they did find someone to build a stadium they would need a tenant to guarantee an income.
Also although the actual athletics stadium is owned by the Council, I'm sure I've been told that the total site is made up of smaller plots made up of different tenants. | | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 16:06 - Jun 17 with 1285 views | TacticalR |
The Norway option. |  |
| |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 16:08 - Jun 17 with 1275 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 16:06 - Jun 17 by TacticalR |
The Norway option. |
I down voted you because we were getting on for a three day streak! haha | | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 17:12 - Jun 17 with 1216 views | stevec |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 15:42 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Welcome Comrade Steve!
|
If only your boys would do something sensible Baz.
Bring in laws where the land becomes 'worthless' to landowners, put a 5% charge per annum on all second homes (£1 trillion in ownership raises 50 billion a year) as I've mentioned numerous times before, nobody needs a second home. Put the same 5% tax per annum on all residential property owned by Companies and overseas owners (that is an even more untapped source).
Instead you plan to clobber single asset home owners by replacing Council Tax with a Valuation Tax which will hurt the cash poor rather than those with 'spare' assets that can be cashed in.
Aside of that, this Norwegian has made a very good point. | | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 17:28 - Jun 17 with 1185 views | NW5Hoop |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 11:42 - Jun 17 by stevec |
Well why should anybody own the 'land' ?
Own the building you build on it by all means, own the right to maintain it for public good, fine with that too. But why on earth does any person or single entity need to own the land underneath it?
Ownership of land arose from a Feudal system that has only really given benefit to land owners. There is absolutely no reason why the land itself cannot be given a country wide valuation of, say, £1 a square metre.
Land could be allocated in exactly the same way it is now, without the burdensome cost of 'purchase' and the subsequent profit that makes building anything in popular cities almost unaffordable for the masses.
Not sure of your politics NW5 but if you are in any way left leaning I'd have thought you'd be in favour of this. |
Yes, I am left-leaning. But I am also concerned with living in a world where things are practical. Your post didn't read as coming from a leftwing perspective: it had more in common with libertarian complaints about the oppressive state preventing entrepeneurs doing what they wanted.
Anyway, all land ownership is to be abolished, is that right? I don't think there are any models where that has worked, because in practice it means all land is owned by the state. And unless you have a state where you can guarantee there will be no change of political philosophy — ie unless you have a dictatorship - land use would in effect be ungoverned and ungovernable. And the few examples where land has been held in common - that is, statewide, rather than on experimental communes, or small social experiments - do rather suggest that public parks being tickety boo are the least of the problems, what with the purges, the lack of freedom, all that stuff. As it is, I'm in favour of limited state ownership of certain things: utilities, common land for non-profit purposes.
Slightly surprised we got here from talking about the new stadium. As for the Norwegian plan, unfortunately I see little chance of our owners taking the leap of building a stadium without some guarantee of ownership. | | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 17:50 - Jun 17 with 1174 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 17:12 - Jun 17 by stevec |
If only your boys would do something sensible Baz.
Bring in laws where the land becomes 'worthless' to landowners, put a 5% charge per annum on all second homes (£1 trillion in ownership raises 50 billion a year) as I've mentioned numerous times before, nobody needs a second home. Put the same 5% tax per annum on all residential property owned by Companies and overseas owners (that is an even more untapped source).
Instead you plan to clobber single asset home owners by replacing Council Tax with a Valuation Tax which will hurt the cash poor rather than those with 'spare' assets that can be cashed in.
Aside of that, this Norwegian has made a very good point. |
ah mate you've give me the horn now. I fully expect you to sign up after this.
Here is policy that almost word for word (apart from the single asset home owner bit) is what you are after.
This was launched last week, but sadly Brexit, the Tory Leadership circus, and a Japanese tanker has knocked it off top billing.
Enjoy!
https://landforthemany.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/land-for-the-many.pdf [Post edited 17 Jun 2019 17:51]
| | | |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 21:19 - Jun 17 with 1038 views | stevec |
| Norwegian R on Stadium Ownership on 17:50 - Jun 17 by BazzaInTheLoft |
ah mate you've give me the horn now. I fully expect you to sign up after this.
Here is policy that almost word for word (apart from the single asset home owner bit) is what you are after.
This was launched last week, but sadly Brexit, the Tory Leadership circus, and a Japanese tanker has knocked it off top billing.
Enjoy!
https://landforthemany.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/land-for-the-many.pdf [Post edited 17 Jun 2019 17:51]
|
Interesting stuff, thanks for flagging it up.
Also interesting that what comes from I believe a Labour think tank, sees Brexit as an opportunity rather than the disaster they lead us to believe! Not exactly what Labour are advocating, or at least not publicly.
The bones of it make sensible reading. However, it shoots itself in the foot with its replacement of council tax. Basically, if you drew a line from Lincoln to Bristol, probably the entire population south of that line will be worse off. I’m trying to work out who’d vote for that.
Also, while it rightly lambasts the way land values have had such an enormous negative impact on the price of housing, it then goes on to effectively take advantage of historically hiked land prices by ‘taxing’ home owners at a notional 4.5% on the cost of the land. It implies the combined cost of mortgage on bricks and mortar added to cost of repaying the State for the land would reduce monthly payments on a £300k property by around 10% but given the likely rise of Council Tax ( or it’s suggested replacement) any property owners south of the said line above wouldn’t be any better off and quite likely a lot worse off.
There are some good ideas but I never get why Labour always resort to punishing the many when they could just as easily implement many of these changes by only punishing the few, in this case second home owners, foreign owned property and Companies owning residential property. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
