Adam Collyer has posted an excellent rant, well worth a read. I left the following comment:
I completely agree.
As an aside, this post reminds me of when I was helping a client negotiating the sale of a more-or- less-derelict site a few years ago. The developer let slip that he calculated the price he’d pay on the basis of permitted number of flats x £50,000 per flat.
This gave us a starting figure of £4 million (eighty flats). A month or two later, the council increased the permitted density to a hundred flats, so we went back to the builder and asked for £5 million (which he duly paid).
Now, tell me, who created that additional £1 million land value or the total £5 million value?
Not the factory owner (he had probably depressed local land values by having a derelict site); not the builder (the £50,000 per flat comes out of his profit); so was it perhaps the local community – the shops, the bus station, the train station, the cinema etc?
And given that this was in a suburb, the trains and buses were only important because you could use them to get in to "town" where most of the workplaces are, so in a sense the whole town collectively created it.
And seeing as that "town" is London, which makes money from being the capital city of the UK (in a political and financial sense), wasn’t it perhaps the whole of the UK who helped create and pay for that value?
Elevate their cause?
11 hours ago
6 comments:
Got that far. And the corollary?
JH, there is no corollary, it's a straightforward question - whose efforts resulted in that site being worth £5 million?
Two points: Adam Collyer's rant: How does he know a) that everyone wants to live in a four-bed house with large garden (I don't) and b) that this is what developers want to build on all sites, even inner-city ones? I would have thought that higher density = more units = greater profits.
Your question: The site was worth £4M because that is what someone was prepared to pay for it. The council changed the rules and the buyer was prepared to pay more, i.e. it was worth more to him. The council was responsible for the increase in value of the land, so they "created" it. The state has been increasing and decreasing the value of land for as long as the state has existed and has had power over private property. I don't see the problem.
B, OK, maybe the council 'created' the £5 million. In the grander scheme of things, the council is there to enforce the will and wishes of 'society in general', and is their elected representative, ergo, it was 'society in general' that created the land value. All roads lead to Rome.
And I didn't say there was 'a problem', I am merely trying to describe the world the way it is. What conclusions we draw from this is a separate issue.
Sorry, I got that wrong, it was the council who created the extra £1M value. The other £4M was there already and, as you say, was created by whoever had built London near to the site
B, you can't really split it up into £4m and £1m.
What if there were no planning restrictions at all and never had been - the site might have gone for £2m (because homes would be cheaper generally)or for £20m (because they could have slapped a 100-storey block on it). Who created the £2m, who created the £20m?
Post a Comment