Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
R K

Who Owns London?

Recommended Posts

http://www.landvaluetax.org/theory/who-owns-london.html

h/t Nicholas Shaxson@nickshaxson 2h Who owns London? Few big aristos: 'lion's share'. (also see Scot. http://******/16Cu4U7 ) From 2008 h/t @MForstater http://www.landvaluetax.org/theory/who-owns-london.html …

In the seventeenth century, London was the City of London. As the eighteenth century progressed, aristocratic land owners started to develop their land; the Earl of Bedford was first, with Covent Garden, then came the Earl of Southampton with Bloomsbury Square, and the Earl of St Albans with St James’s Square. The 1760s saw the development of the Bedford Estate in Bloomsbury and the Portman Estate in Marylebone, followed by the Grosvenor Estate, mostly in the early nineteenth century.

The developments were carried out under a leasehold system. The land owner would let plots to a developer or builder, who would build at his own expense. and at the end of the lease the development would become the property of the ground landlord. Funds would be raised for the construction on the security of the lease agreement. The landlords’ estate surveyors would ensure the quality and finish of the elevations. The system was of great advantage to the landowner, who could develop his land with little risk or capital outlay, gained and income from from the ground rent, and at the end of the lease, usuallly 99 years, the property reverted to the estate. At the end of the lease period, the estates would renew leases at increased rents or redevelop the land.

In this way, death duties notwithstanding, the great aristocratic estates of Grosvenor, Cadogan, de Walden, Portman and Bedford, together with the Crown Estate and the City of London, have survived 300 years and still control the lion’s share of Central London.

The above is not a piece of socialist propaganda. It was taken from a catalogue of an exhibition, called "The Great Estates", promoted by those estates, of architecture in 2006. The Campaign has no objection in principle to the fact a large proportion of the capital’s land is owned by a handful of families. They have indeed managed their properties well. The estates constitute some of the finest urban environments in the world. But their owners gather up a growing stream of land rent, that arises from the presence and activities of the community, which provides, amongst other things, the infrastructure on which their estates are totally dependent. The landowners themselves, as such, do nothing to earn to earn their land value. The situation is taken for granted, which it should not be.

How did all this land come to fall into the hands of a few “aristocratic” families? What does “aristocratic” actually mean? The possession of special high-quality blue corpuscles circulating in the bloodstream? Usually, they are the distant descendants of monarchs’ favourites who managed to avoid getting their heads chopped off.

Such a concentration of power and wealth takes a toll on democracy. The owners of these estates will gladly spend a little bit to ensure that nothing is done which might harm their privileged position. Normally, the situation is never mentioned, which proves how effective they are in stopping debate. This why it was surprising to find all the information gathered together in an exhibition catalogue. But then it was unlikely to fall into the hands of anyone who would bring the contents to public attention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, until the mid-19th century, you had to be a landowner to be able to vote.

There were a series of Acts - land grabs - called the Enclosures Acts, which allowed landlords to sieze common land and drive off people resident on it - giving rise, in particular, to the Highland clearances and similar in Ireland.

Paul Raynond did make some inroads into Soho, though.

And of course, the aristocrats still pack the House of Lords. So the corrupt use of power continues.

During WWI they came up with the brilliant idea of raising taxes not from land, but from the labour of the people who actually worked - Income Tax.. Thankfully, it was a 'temporary' measure for WWI. <_<

Edited by happy_renting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, until the mid-19th century, you had to be a landowner to be able to vote.

There were a series of Acts - land grabs - called the Enclosures Acts, which allowed landlords to sieze common land and drive off people resident on it - giving rise, in particular, to the Highland clearances and similar in Ireland.

Paul Raynond did make some inroads into Soho, though.

And of course, the aristocrats still pack the House of Lords. So the corrupt use of power continues.

During WWI they came up with the brilliant idea of raising taxes not from land, but from the labour of the people who actually worked - Income Tax.. Thankfully, it was a 'temporary' measure for WWI. dry.gif

Same here in Yorkshire. And Huddersfield was in many respects a "new town" put together by a rentier family, The Ramsdens who bought the "lord of the manor" from Queen Elizabeth I, enclosed the lands and developed the town and the canal and bought further political influence and married into the aristocracy.

Then the people of Huddersfield had to buy their freedom and pay to get it all back through the Huddersfield metropolitan Council, and his was as late as the 1920's!

BBC covered this recently in Top Towns, which very quickly glossed over the whole land enclosure thing, in fact I got the impression, the presenter thought it was a good thing! No thought of course given that ordinary people had gone from being rent free, to paying rent (or more likely being turfed off the land entirely). No mention at of the squalid slum accommodation, not only for those dispossessed, but for the Irish immigrant labour being sucked into the mill working.

Apart from the canal and laying out the "grid" street plan the Rentier Ramsdens never looked back, and just collected the rents, unlike the textile entrepreneurs of the industrial revolution.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oviously it would be nice if it was all shared out a bit more fairly, but owning property has been more of a burden than a valuable source of income for centuries, and we are just experience a peculiar madness at the moment, which may have been going on for many decades.

[opinion formed by reading Dickens, Austen, and watching Rising Damp]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oviously it would be nice if it was all shared out a bit more fairly, but owning property has been more of a burden than a valuable source of income for centuries, and we are just experience a peculiar madness at the moment, which may have been going on for many decades.

[opinion formed by reading Dickens, Austen, and watching Rising Damp]

Nothing has changed since those days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here in Yorkshire. And Huddersfield was in many respects a "new town" put together by a rentier family, The Ramsdens who bought the "lord of the manor" from Queen Elizabeth I, enclosed the lands and developed the town and the canal and bought further political influence and married into the aristocracy.

The late 20 Century has been too kind to them, aren't they reduced to running fish and chip shops?:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, until the mid-19th century, you had to be a landowner to be able to vote.

There were a series of Acts - land grabs - called the Enclosures Acts, which allowed landlords to sieze common land and drive off people resident on it - giving rise, in particular, to the Highland clearances and similar in Ireland.

Paul Raynond did make some inroads into Soho, though.

And of course, the aristocrats still pack the House of Lords. So the corrupt use of power continues.

During WWI they came up with the brilliant idea of raising taxes not from land, but from the labour of the people who actually worked - Income Tax.. Thankfully, it was a 'temporary' measure for WWI. dry.gif

I think that income tax was a temporary measure for the Napoleonic wars and that as introduced it only hit the seriously wealthy at a fairly low rate. It took the more left wing governments of the 20th century to spread its scope and increase its rate. In the name of more equality, I presume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The late 20 Century has been too kind to them, aren't they reduced to running fish and chip shops?:blink:

:lol:

Not Harry Ramsden!

They sold the town for £1.2M in 1920, not sure whats happened to them since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once our cycling club was out for a pedal - about 18 of us.

We were stopped by a guy in a Landrover who advised us that we were riding on a private road, his road, and that we should promptly turn round and go back the way we had come.

Notwithstanding that we had seen no signs indicating any private ownership, the sensible option would have been to let us continue - the public highway was about half a mile ahead of us, but about 3 miles behind us.

But the landowner was adamant that we should retrace our wheel tracks

A heated discussion ensued in which said gent was asked to prove his claim of ownership. His retort was that he had to prove nothing, the land had been in his family for generations and had been gifted to the family for helping the then king in some war or other

The club's bon viveur then piped up that as his family had gained the land by fighting, maybe he should fight us for it there and then.

We were soon on our way for the remaining 1/2 mile

But that was one of the first incidents that got me thinking about land ownership through the ages: my basic understanding is that the gentry took the land by force and then made it illegal to take land by force

Rum deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, until the mid-19th century, you had to be a landowner to be able to vote.

There were a series of Acts - land grabs - called the Enclosures Acts, which allowed landlords to sieze common land and drive off people resident on it - giving rise, in particular, to the Highland clearances and similar in Ireland.

Paul Raynond did make some inroads into Soho, though.

And of course, the aristocrats still pack the House of Lords. So the corrupt use of power continues.

During WWI they came up with the brilliant idea of raising taxes not from land, but from the labour of the people who actually worked - Income Tax.. Thankfully, it was a 'temporary' measure for WWI. <_<

indeed.

and the aristocracy, if they have any sense, know when they have overplayed their hand.

failure to recognise the symptoms leads to stuff like the french revolution.

..that was basically a kneejerk reaction to the hoardings of le duc de orleans etc being too greedy.

seems our politicians are still too greedy.

it is still possible to stop thing getting totally out of hand, but it needs a much more humble landed/monied/corporate/political class who will admit they're wrong.

...unfortunately the ones we presently have are extremely arrogant.

but full blown communism is most certainly NOT the solution(although the marxists are trying their best to exacerbate the problem).

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once our cycling club was out for a pedal - about 18 of us.

We were stopped by a guy in a Landrover who advised us that we were riding on a private road, his road, and that we should promptly turn round and go back the way we had come.

Notwithstanding that we had seen no signs indicating any private ownership, the sensible option would have been to let us continue - the public highway was about half a mile ahead of us, but about 3 miles behind us.

But the landowner was adamant that we should retrace our wheel tracks

A heated discussion ensued in which said gent was asked to prove his claim of ownership. His retort was that he had to prove nothing, the land had been in his family for generations and had been gifted to the family for helping the then king in some war or other

The club's bon viveur then piped up that as his family had gained the land by fighting, maybe he should fight us for it there and then.

We were soon on our way for the remaining 1/2 mile

But that was one of the first incidents that got me thinking about land ownership through the ages: my basic understanding is that the gentry took the land by force and then made it illegal to take land by force

Rum deal

Hilarious. I wish it had come to blows!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious. I wish it had come to blows!

Its an excellent idea though. We should fight the landed gentry over land. After all that is how they got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its an excellent idea though. We should fight the landed gentry over land. After all that is how they got it!

Oh we will, we will.

It's coming and they know it. They probably pull off the usual diversionary tactic of starting a war somewhere. Either that or present the lower classes with another target of resentment. Immigrants anyone? The unemployed?

Edited by the gardener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once our cycling club was out for a pedal - about 18 of us.

We were stopped by a guy in a Landrover who advised us that we were riding on a private road, his road, and that we should promptly turn round and go back the way we had come.

Notwithstanding that we had seen no signs indicating any private ownership, the sensible option would have been to let us continue - the public highway was about half a mile ahead of us, but about 3 miles behind us.

But the landowner was adamant that we should retrace our wheel tracks

A heated discussion ensued in which said gent was asked to prove his claim of ownership. His retort was that he had to prove nothing, the land had been in his family for generations and had been gifted to the family for helping the then king in some war or other

The club's bon viveur then piped up that as his family had gained the land by fighting, maybe he should fight us for it there and then.

We were soon on our way for the remaining 1/2 mile

But that was one of the first incidents that got me thinking about land ownership through the ages: my basic understanding is that the gentry took the land by force and then made it illegal to take land by force

Rum deal

It raises a serious question: Can land be owned and on what grounds?

We don't stand for 'might is right' for the ownership of other stuff, so why land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, until the mid-19th century, you had to be a landowner to be able to vote.

There were a series of Acts - land grabs - called the Enclosures Acts, which allowed landlords to sieze common land and drive off people resident on it - giving rise, in particular, to the Highland clearances and similar in Ireland.

Paul Raynond did make some inroads into Soho, though.

And of course, the aristocrats still pack the House of Lords. So the corrupt use of power continues.

During WWI they came up with the brilliant idea of raising taxes not from land, but from the labour of the people who actually worked - Income Tax.. Thankfully, it was a 'temporary' measure for WWI. <_<

people seem to forget that england also had "the corn laws"

why do scotland and ireland have a monopoly on playing victim here?

you could say much the same about the holocaust(now I'm probably going to get flamed for this)

..but were there not many more polish/russian, and people targeted by the authorities of the day as mentally deficient, victims of that particular regime?

...doesn't mean they wren't treated brutally,they were, but they were not the only ones.

just because we have an extremely vocal minority shouting extremely loudly,does not necessarily mean they have the whole picture.

FWIW I think genocide of any particular people or race is a completely reprehensible act...and hopefully when the one against us is exposed (the one using chemicals in the food and water supplies and wearing a big smiley face with lots of smooth soothing hypno-babble by the practicioners),for what it really is we will get justice.

....if you believe in (jesus christ)god, then I think he does justice......maybe not just yet but it will come

....if you believe in old testament god,then these crimes have not gone unnoticed...and he's going to show the world in no uncertain terms that he does hate-speech.....and the perpatrators on on borrowed time....and he does revenge in a big way.

(ps somebody familiar with old testament stuff seems to be backing me up with lyrics!)...try these..

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=john%20lennon%20i%20read%20the%20news%20today&source=video&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DP-Q9D4dcYng&ei=YrUPUpL7Ms-qhQeUnICICQ&usg=AFQjCNHZxyawa0w_50iwURzqVONW4iR0pQ&bvm=bv.50768961,d.ZG4

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20bee%20gees%20you%20win%20again&source=video&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeR6KBXbH3EI&ei=8rUPUvaoBubm7AaLl4GQCg&usg=AFQjCNGUeKtvxEHlUuvRwncnlxUhoE4Tjg&bvm=bv.50768961,d.ZG4

in the case of the latter,the instruction manual is quite clear.

in this war you fight.........and you play to win...no holds barred.(we will win decisively...but we shoudln't let it go to our heads...as this is actually a sucker-punch)

in the next one you are up against entities that are not entirely "human"(and we will get a spanking), so your best defence is to pray...when enough people do that he'll step in and take care of the rest.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.