On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Brimstone wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...

Also, while we're at it, to what extent can and is the Olympic project
being funded by value capture in the regeneration area?

"value capture"????????

1. You have a house
2. The state builds something which increases the value of your house
3. Profit!
4. Tax!

Or, as the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy puts it:

"Value capture refers to the process by which all or a portion of
increments in land value attributed to "community interventions" rather
than landowner actions are recouped by the public sector. These "unearned
increments" may be captured indirectly through their conversion into
public revenues as taxes, fees, exactions or other fiscal means, or
directly through on-site improvements to benefit the community at large."

Motivating example - some motorway in New York state:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00011

Which cost 128 million USD of public money to build, and which has
generated 3734 million USD of private wealth in increased land value.
Value capture would mean finding a way of taking a slice of that increased
private wealth - which was generated entirely by public money - back for
the public sector, so making the project zero net cost, whilst leaving
most of the wealth in private hands (in this case, just 3.5% of the gain
in value would need to be captured to break even). Without value capture,
you essentially have one set of taxpayers propping up another set's land
value, which isn't fair.

Ken was mumbling a while ago about using value capture to fund Crossrail -
as soon as it's built, house prices in places it serves will go up, which
will mean million of pounds going into the pockets of homeowners for no
reason other than that they happen to have a house in the right place at
the right time. It seems fair that some of that money should go to the
state, which build the railway in the first place!

tom

--
dream warrior, sun dancer