It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How Government Could Provide You Space to Grow Food, Without Tax Increase

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:05 PM
In England all local Councils are supposed to provide their residents with Allotments, but because the law is without a time deadline, it fails to function:
It mentioned how Councils could have the power to "compulsorily rent" land from suitable land owners. At first I thought this was a brilliant idea. But then I thought about the effects Council Tax already has on me (never mind e.g. retired people living on dwindling income).

However there is a solution....
How about the (would-be) tenants commit to covering the Councils rent, costs? That way; all the local councils would have to do is...
1. Choose the bits of farming land local people would like to have.
2. Then they pay the landowner fair, market value, based compensation for the private property they are utilising.
3. But it costs the taxpayer nothing because the costs are met by the groups of local residents, who only wanted somewhere to grow their family food.

Providing Government Extra Revenue...
Of course if the (English) council took 3 acres of land worth e.g.. £50,000, paid £5000 a year rent-compensation to the land owner, then they might split the 3 acres into 10 lots. They then charge the tenants 700 a year per patch receiving £7,000 for all of these. Therefore they would make a £2000 "Commission" without even touching tax bills. The right legislation could ensure that when an allotment falls out of use, it immediately returns to the original land owner (thereby saving the Council money on empty-useless land).

Targeting Disused Property?
There are always plenty of old buildings, and other blocks of land that are not being properly utilised. In the UK this especially true when it comes to investment firms-developers "holding" land as a rising commodity, rather than utilising it as something that needs developing now. The risk the local council could find a use for their empty property, and that (although compensated) they would be unable to stop it, would mean your business had a very good incentive to make use of any planning, permissions, quickly. This would enable Councils to plan local development much better, because they would know that few obstacles were in the way.

What Do You Think?
Too Socialist?

But I'm not a Socialist! (Or even ever likely to be on the receiving end, of its distribution).
Yet (especially) when it comes to really important "quality of life" matters; I'm not against democratic, law, assisting other private citizens, in putting their own capital to work (even if it is at the expense of a privileged minority) (just so long as private compensation, for loss of private property, is always kept reasonable).
Also I'd only ever support what I'm advocating if the scheme had almost-no funding from taxpayers; and if the Council was only acting on behalf of residents (as opposed to e.g. ambitious land owners, seeking land, from other land owners!)

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:42 PM
I think it's a great idea, Some people own too much land, like vast expanses of ranch land. Some of the rich and powerful own too much property and they should not be excluded from having to surrender what they can't use.

I don't want anyone to tell me they earned the land... They didn't.

I think land should be free with an option to earn the fair property value of the land to buy it outright to people who will improve on the land through sustainable organic farming that leaves the land improved rather than in a state of decline which is the only way to avoid environmental problems and with a plan that ensures people with less than 2 or 3 kids have more land than people with 4 or more kids.

If you look at old settlement maps- I've seen maps of Eastern Canada in the 1700-1800's- Families would each have one strip of land adjacent to a river or creek, there were hundreds of these organic farms but today they're all gone, replaced by big agribusinesses.

People all over the world are poor or homeless because they don't have property rights that they can build up on or because of corrupt governments who don't spend on infrastructure like wells or desalination faculties.

Since people in power need to control people through poverty and debt bondage seeing such a plan through will be an uphill battle.

It's not in the power elite's plan to have reduced control over people, how to deal with that is up to the people themselves- I saw the signature of a poster somewhere, "The brave man dies once, but the coward dies a thousand deaths," something like that.

There will always be people who live in cities but there will be less poor families in the cities. Ah but you see? If there are fewer poor families in the city who will look after the rich, to cook their foods, look after their delicate children, clean their places? You have your answer.

These poor families aren't going anywhere soon, not if the powers that be can help it.

new topics

log in