Hi all again,

I nipped in to the New London Architecture gallery
(http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/) yesterday. They've got a little
exhibition on various exciting new things that are being built in London;
it's fairly light on actual information, but has loads of maps and
maquettes, including a superb 1:1500 model of the whole of central London
- it's bigger than my living room!

Anyway, i noticed, or was reminded, that stuff - including the Stratford
International station and perhaps some Olympic follies - is being built on
the 'Stratford rail lands'. What exactly are these? What's there now? What
was there before? Are or have any freight-related facilities been moved or
closed because of these plans?

Also, while we're at it, to what extent can and is the Olympic project
being funded by value capture in the regeneration area? The maps i saw
make it clear that the plan is to make the Lea Valley a desirable place to
live, and to move lots of people there; that should be a great opportunity
for value capture.

tom

--
dream warrior, sun dancer

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
Hi all again,

I nipped in to the New London Architecture gallery
(http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/) yesterday. They've got a little
exhibition on various exciting new things that are being built in London;
it's fairly light on actual information, but has loads of maps and
maquettes, including a superb 1:1500 model of the whole of central London
- it's bigger than my living room!

Anyway, i noticed, or was reminded, that stuff - including the Stratford
International station and perhaps some Olympic follies - is being built on
the 'Stratford rail lands'. What exactly are these? What's there now? What
was there before? Are or have any freight-related facilities been moved or
closed because of these plans?

Also, while we're at it, to what extent can and is the Olympic project
being funded by value capture in the regeneration area? The maps i saw
make it clear that the plan is to make the Lea Valley a desirable place to
live, and to move lots of people there; that should be a great opportunity
for value capture.


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

(Thinks: yet more jargon being released into the wild to fend for itself.)

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

Tom Anderson wrote:
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

Stratford Rail Lands has long been seen as a major development site,
the Olympics will just speed things up. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link
and station run right through the middle of tis area which is being
called 'Stratford City'.

Until the early/mid 90s there was a freightliner terminal and two loco
depots, including the erecting shop of the old GER Stratford Works, now
demolished. Even when they were there there was lots of vacant or
derelict land alongside. Freightliner moved their business elsewhere
long ago and a car park was provided in 1999 for the hordes of people
expected to come to the Millennium Dome - I don't think it was ever
used. Much of the area was then used for manufacturing the concrete
segments used to line the CTRL tunnels; in addition to the construction
sites for the new station and tunnels. I believe the spoil from the
tunnels was used to raise the level of the development sites - much of
this area was once marshland. The best way at the moment to view all
these changes is to take a train on the North London Line, which goes
through the site. Or go to the top level of the Stratford multi-storey
car park.

EWS now have a new loco depot at the edge of the area, where the old
Temple Mills Marshalling Yard was - and another new depot for CTRL
trains is also being built there.

And, concerning 'value capture' the Mayor, the relevant Boroughs and
the Thames Gateway Urban Development Corporation are looking at ways to
introduce standard tariffs on development in the area surrounding the
Olympic site; to be used to fund infrastructure needed in the Lower Lea
Valley - further away from the Olympic Zone.

umpston wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:
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

Stratford Rail Lands has long been seen as a major development site,
the Olympics will just speed things up. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link
and station run right through the middle of tis area which is being
called 'Stratford City'.

Until the early/mid 90s there was a freightliner terminal and two loco
depots, including the erecting shop of the old GER Stratford Works, now
demolished. Even when they were there there was lots of vacant or
derelict land alongside. Freightliner moved their business elsewhere
long ago and a car park was provided in 1999 for the hordes of people
expected to come to the Millennium Dome - I don't think it was ever
used. Much of the area was then used for manufacturing the concrete
segments used to line the CTRL tunnels; in addition to the construction
sites for the new station and tunnels. I believe the spoil from the
tunnels was used to raise the level of the development sites - much of
this area was once marshland. The best way at the moment to view all
these changes is to take a train on the North London Line, which goes
through the site. Or go to the top level of the Stratford multi-storey
car park.

EWS now have a new loco depot at the edge of the area, where the old
Temple Mills Marshalling Yard was - and another new depot for CTRL
trains is also being built there.

And, concerning 'value capture' the Mayor, the relevant Boroughs and
the Thames Gateway Urban Development Corporation are looking at ways to
introduce standard tariffs on development in the area surrounding the
Olympic site; to be used to fund infrastructure needed in the Lower Lea
Valley - further away from the Olympic Zone.

P.S. to my earlier post. The road signs at the Lee Valley A12
(Hackney-M11 Link Road) junction still point to a supposed 'Stratford
International Freight Terminal' in Temple Mills Lane - this must have
been agreed at the planning stage but by the time the road opened in
1999 the freightliner terminal was gone. I think it had been
'mothballed' for quite a few years before they took the track and
cranes away, or used merely as an 'overspill' facility when the
Willesden terminal was full. I don't know whether there are any
planned CTRL freight facilities in this area.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:44:24 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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.

No, it won't, until they sell.

It seems fair that some of that money should go to the
state, which build the railway in the first place!

I trust that this will not take place until the house is sold.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Neil Williams wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:44:24 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

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.

No, it won't, until they sell.

Or remortgage. Or put the rent up.

It seems fair that some of that money should go to the state, which
build the railway in the first place!

I trust that this will not take place until the house is sold.

Or the owner takes advantage of the increase in value in some other way.
Absolutely.

Unless one felt like making arguments along the lines of the theory that
land taxes are good because they encourage efficient use of land. Which,
right now, i don't.

tom

--
dream warrior, sun dancer

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:25:04 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

No, it won't, until they sell.

Or remortgage. Or put the rent up.

Agreed.

Or the owner takes advantage of the increase in value in some other way.
Absolutely.

Unless one felt like making arguments along the lines of the theory that
land taxes are good because they encourage efficient use of land. Which,
right now, i don't.

Retrospective taxes are in all cases unfair, because the "victim" may
not have the means to pay them - so I agree. It should not be charged
until such time as the increased value is realised - and only then on
a part of that increase.

Rising prices nationally should also be taken into account when
determining the figure.

(No, I'm not a homeowner, BTW, I rent, and am perhaps unusually in an
area where, despite the fact that purchase prices have increased by a
factor of nearly 2 in 4 years, rents have hardly changed in that same
amount of time - hence I'm still renting...)

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

Anyway, i noticed, or was reminded, that stuff - including the
Stratford International station and perhaps some Olympic follies - is
being built on the 'Stratford rail lands'.

Part of the Olympic village will be on the former "rail lands" site, but
most of the site will become the Stratford City Development, once London
and Continental Railways vacate it in the next year. After the Olympics,
the village is planned to form permanent dwellings that will be part of
this development.

Most of the Olympics facilities are immediately to the north and west of
this, in the Lower Lea Valley.

What exactly are these?

Former railway marshalling yards (about 180 acres of them).

What's there now?

The CTRL Stratford International station works.

What was there before? Are or have any freight-related facilities been
moved or closed because of these plans?

The marshalling yards have been derelict for a very long time.

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

None, AFAIK. The project is being funded by £1.5 billion from the
National Lottery, £625 million from London Council Tax payers and £250
million from taxpayers at large, through the London Development Agency.
When the lottery fails to raise enough money, it is expected that London
Council Taxpayers will have to meet the shortfall, on top of the
ten-year levy already planned.

--
Paul Terry

Tom Anderson wrote:

Also, while we're at it, to what extent can and is the Olympic project
being funded by value capture in the regeneration area? The maps i saw
make it clear that the plan is to make the Lea Valley a desirable place to
live, and to move lots of people there; that should be a great opportunity
for value capture.

To the (quite significant) extent that residential properties in the area
are owned by housing associations or local authorities, I assume you'd agree
that these bodies should be included within the 'value capture' scheme?

Chris