They sound like sensible ideas.
I had thought it was this legislation
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/106
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Pressure on green belt as 10,000 homes to be built"
(705 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
Perhaps instead, businesses should be
forcedencouraged to locate close to existing affordable housing and draw their workforce from there, instead of everyone trying to cram in to the city?Posted 5 years ago # -
Ed1 - almost, that's the English equivalent. In Scotland it was Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 - now Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I don't think anyone should be allowed to own land at all. Long-term custodianship why not, but ownership? How could ownership of the surface of the planet legally arise?
Clearly all land was occupied by force initially. Nobody has ever created land by hard work, though they may have improved it and be due the value of their improvement.
There are large tracts of Scotland that have already been expropriated by the state and sold to the highest bidder under the Act anent Estates of Traitors of 1746 and its 1716 equivalent.
My solution: expropriate all land (but not the buildings on it). Decide democratically to whom the land should be allocated to best suit society. Charge Land Value Tax to the occupants.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"Nobody has ever created land by hard work"
Flevoland would disagree, but we know what you mean.
Ever read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy? He likes stewardships of lands and decumulation of private wealth.Posted 5 years ago # -
How can you own bits of metal/carbon fibre/rubber? They are all just parts of planet Earth.
Who has the right to expropriate something that nobody can apprently own? Where does the ' democratic right' to do all this come from anyway?
Glad to see spending the best part of three years studying the History of Political Theory hasn't been wasted....Posted 5 years ago # -
I'm pretty sure that the right to occupy, act on and exclude others from land can usefully be seen as a different category from the right to hold objects derived from land. Also my body and the objects I own are in different categories. I propose a hierarchy;
1) Our bodies - no one may take or use them.
2) Objects, including objects on land such as houses - we may hold them if others agree.
3) Land - should not be owned but allocated for the common good.When slavery was abolished in the UK of GB&I slave owners were compensated but not the slaves.
Posted 5 years ago # -
If you don’t own the land, where is the incentive to improve it?
Posted 5 years ago # -
When slavery was abolished in the UK of GB&I slave owners were compensated
compensated from the tax of the working class, no less
i boycott certain streets of glesga to this day
and it goes without saying that
the entire new town of edinburgh is verboten
Posted 5 years ago # -
If you don’t own the land, where is the incentive to improve it?
Excellent question as ever. I don't own Edinburgh yet but I do want to improve it by, for instance, paying my share of a cycle network.
The Drumochter Pass, a contender for the bleakest corner of all Caledon, is owned by a shell company in Panama. They seem not have any motive to improve it.
Surely we're all motivated to improve the places where we pass our all too brief span regardless of ownership?
Not sure ownership and motivation to improve are connected as simply as first sight suggests?
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Not sure ownership and motivation to improve are connected as simply as first sight suggests?”
Irrespective of ownership the perperetual problem of “improve” will remain - not least in the context of this thread.
There is a default assumption that building on Green Belt (or at least the agricultural bits) is undesirable/bad and that developers only do it to make profits - often expecting levels of return that can be described as excessive.
It is clear that there is a need for places for people to live and this thread has covered the changes in household sizes (and thereby need for more units beyond the rise in population - more divorce and single person households etc).
‘We’ are particularly concerned about a planning system that encourages (and/or is unable to discourage) developments that will lead to even more car use due to lack of adequate provision of alternative transport options - with even less prospect of actual restrictions on the choice to travel alone in a car.
All the futurist talk of autonomous vehicles meaning fewer people actually owning vehicles might have some marginal effect on the need for parking spaces, but clearly not intended to reduce traffic. ‘It’ll be fine because future vehicle will be electric so no air pollution and no more close passes...’
More needs to be done on the many questions surrounding ownership of land and particularly how to tax its use and non-use.
But don’t forget there are people and government departments and LAs who want to see more land covered in more/bigger roads, more dwelling units unrelated to employment opportunities, ‘out of town’ shopping and film studios etc.
Of course when IWRATS IS in charge things will be done PROPERLY.
Posted 5 years ago # -
when IWRATS IS in charge things will be done PROPERLY
Anybody know any good tattooists?
Posted 5 years ago # -
@IWRATS, actually, yes.
Posted 5 years ago # -
That's the thing about owning stuff, it's, well, "ownership".
When you take "ownership" of something, it means two things:
1. You legally own it.
2. You take responsibility for it.Example: For a tenant in a property they do not own, they might "improve" the property by adding some throws to the sofa, some plants in the living room, or by adding some of their own pictures. However, there is no incentive to maintain the property structurally aside from if it gets really bad and starts leaking water/wind, etc.
But as we all know, it's much cheaper and more efficient to fix things before they get bad - "a stitch in time"
My feeling is, if no one owns anything, everything will turn to a state of gradual decay. Isn't this what happened in communist countries?
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Arellcat
Ah, who do you go to?
Posted 5 years ago # -
"My feeling is, if no one owns anything, everything will turn to a state of gradual decay. Isn't this what happened in communist countries?"
Not really. In the former communist/socialist countries officially "the people" owned everything. In practice this meant the state (as the guarantor of the people's interests) owned everything. Much of the decay you refer to (though not all) happened after the fall of communism/socialism, during the so-called "wild capitalism" phase of transition from communism/socialism (to what...?).
Plenty of gradual decay to be found in the UK, which has always been capitalist, even during the post-WW2 "mixed economy" experiment of widespread nationalised industries, mass social housing built by government, etc. Go and have a wonder round south of the Clyde in Glasgow for example and see the crumbling buildings. The epitome of rapid decay would be somewhere like Detroit, which is located in a very capitalist country.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“
Before the advent of the automobile, Detroit was a small, compact, regional manufacturing center. In 1900, Detroit had a population of 285,000 people, making it the thirteenth largest city in the U.S.[6] Over the following decades, the growth of the automobile industry, including affiliated activities such as parts manufacturing, came to dwarf all other manufacturing in the city. The industry drew a million new residents to the city. At Ford Motor's iconic and enormous River Rouge plant alone, opened in 1927 in Dearborn, there were over 90,000 workers.[6]
“
Posted 5 years ago # -
This will do wonders for traffic in West Edinburgh.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I can't work out where in Winchburgh this is. I assume this "marina" will be similar to what is on the canal at Ratho. "35 acres of employment land" - what on earth does that mean ?
Posted 5 years ago # -
"Winchburgh Developments Ltd confirmed that they would construct the rail station in time for the commencement of rail services in December 2018."
"The delivery of a rail station at Winchburgh has been agreed by all parties involved. Rail services will commence in December 2018 subject to all necessary construction and timetabling works being completed on schedule."
http://www.winchburghcc.org.uk/media/other/33711/WinchburghRailStation.pdf
How's all that going? I think I can guess...
Posted 5 years ago # -
@redmist - I'm guessing it's roughly here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/55.9679/-3.4828
Bounded by the canal to the north and the footpath (marked red on the map) to the east. There's a separate planning application (1123/FUL/18) in for turning the landfill site into a public park.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Thanks Frenchy. I occasionally cycle down that footpath so I know where you are.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Murun Buchstansang, I think the answer to that question is revealed in the very same report you linked to. "Transport Scotland have stated they would not grant permission for a station if it would negatively impact upon the stated journey time aims of EGIP"
Posted 5 years ago # -
Winchburgh village to be developed into town in West Lothian
No mention of a train station...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46906369
Posted 5 years ago # -
What’s needed is a station with four tracks, (two for non-stop), careful timetabling AND reliability so that fast trains can pass while others are at platform.
Rail line just off top of artist’s impression.
Obviously some trains would need to wait several minutes to allow ‘expresses’ to pass - and no doubt that would be ‘unacceptable’ to railway operators and impatient passengers.
Normal in parts of Scotland’s that are singletracked.
Posted 5 years ago # -
OR put the station on the Dalmeny line and attract new residents who would travel to Fife and Glasgow more than Edinburgh!
Posted 5 years ago # -
"35 acres of employment land" - what on earth does that mean ?
A small turnip farm.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I notice long Dalamhoy and Warriston farm road are much busier than they used to be there was a 6 car long traffic jam on Warriston road the other day. It appears more people are coming down from Balerno on Ravelrig road. Gala homes build an estate of at the edge of Balerno last year.
It appears Ravelrig road is being used as short cut for the the new Gala monstrosities causing the junction to turn amber on google maps.
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
