Can’t resist taking a shot to see if I can do it in 5 tweets or fewer…

(Your fault @nicread !)
1066 - William I establishes a system of land ownership that gives incredible political & economic power to landowners, giving land incredible 💰 value.
1948-1961- We regulate development but still end up allowing landowners to capture most increases in land value, even though that land value is created by everyone.
1970s-2000s This creates a biz model: 1. buy up potential development land. 2. wait / negotiate for LAs to award planning permission.
3. capture the sudden ⬆️ in land value by 🏗 cheapest (facsimiles of) homes & n’hoods you are allowed to, then sell to the mortgage industry.
2000- Successive policies put ever-increasing pressure on LPAs to award planning permission, compromising on quality in order to prioritise quantity. Meanwhile the land value capture industry is also heavily subsidised because Gov believes we rely on it.
2020s Side-effect: we all end up living in the financial assets left behind by this industry. Even though they were never really designed to be successful places to live (I.e good social, economic or environmental infrastructure). That wasn’t their purpose.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alastair Parvin

Alastair Parvin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlastairParvin

4 Jul
This is the real question. Here’s three suggestions…
1. Repeal the 1961 Land Compensation Act. This will allow communities to capture the huge ⬆️ in land value that they create by giving their consent for development. That’s 💰 that can be spent on infrastructure (🚈, 🧑‍🏫, 🌳 etc) instead of going into the pockets of speculators.
(Happy side effect: it also discourages land speculation / hoarding etc, makes development more popular with communities, and ends the 🤦🏻‍♂️ nonsense of ‘viability’ as a justification for crap/ unaffordable development)
Read 7 tweets
8 May 20
We are living in an era of zombie systems. Everyone knows they’re dysfunctional and discredited but we keep operating within them anyway, because it’s so hard to fix the game while you’re a player on the board.

1/5
The great leaders of the 21st century will probably not be high heads of state - but those who, from within old systems finally can no longer sustain such a dissonance between their professional lives and their personal beliefs and values.

2/5
Those with the courage to finally say “enough is enough. I’m not pedalling this cr*p anymore, but I’m not leaving either.” From within the old systems, they start imagining, testing and building new ones. Even if it’s done by sneaking just 1% of their budget onto R&D.

3/5
Read 5 tweets
3 Nov 19
The Conservatives just seem to be resorting to flat-out lies.

This proposal is a no-brainer. It reduces carbon 🌍, saves people money📉, creates jobs, boosts the economy📈, pays for itself, tackles fuel poverty.

Tories: “it would wreck the economy” 🤷🏻‍♂️? bbc.co.uk/news/election-…
The purple line on this graph is why upgrading existing homes is so important if you’re remotely interested in UK meeting our carbon reduction goals.
New homes represents only about 0.5% of the total stock every year. So even if every new home we build we were making 0 carbon (we’re not), we badly need to upgrade and replace existing stock.
Read 5 tweets
11 Jan 19
In defence of (arguably) lost causes: have a question / thought on the topic of ‘inclusive growth’. I’d love to hear your take @KateRaworth (Caveat: it’s probably rubbish). Thread:
1/The concept of “inclusive growth” is a valid critique of the fact that most growth today is.. not. Extractive monopolies, share buybacks, rent, instead of reinvestment and shared prosperity. But doesn’t scale as an idea, because it it ignores the limits to growth.
2/ We’re also recognising the flaws in trying to monetise the limits to growth (eg carbon credits) because a. They create perverse incentives and b. Are arguably the moral equivalent of allowing the wealthy to pay to break the law.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(