(TL;DR The answer is debt agreements + the fact that a commercial property’s value is a function of its rent. With so much on the line, Landlords prefer to “pray and delay” rather than accept a drop in value.)
(The obvious problem being that if all the shops on a street do this, it even further amplifies the decline of the neighbourhood 🔁) #tragedyofthecommons
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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)
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.
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
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.