Housing Requires Land?

Question
1

If you need a house but cant afford one, and you don’t already own land, the government could release you a parcel of Crown land to homestead?

Even if you don’t have much money you can build a lowcost makeshift earthship on your land.

Historically, homesteading has been used by governmental entities (engaged in national expansion) to help populate and make habitable what were previously little-desired areas; especially in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Guided by legal homestead principles, many of these “homestead acts” were instituted in the 19th and 20th centuries in order to drive the populating of specific, national areas; with most being discontinued after a set time-frame or goal were achieved.

Renewed interest in homesteading was brought about by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s program of Subsistence Homesteading in the 1930s and 1940s.[2]

Public lands comprise around 23% of Australian land, of which the largest single category is vacant land, comprising 12.5% of the land. [1]

Apparently about 50% of NSW is Crown land.

More land owners provides a larger base for collection of LVT, and decreases costs of upholding the land.

Its true that Leo Tolstoy said this amongst other measures were unnecessary if Henry George’s policies of LVT were implemented, but this was in older times. And perhaps our LVT doesn’t go far enough yet. Does the LVT apply to Crowne land?
george

Now we realise that some people are advantaged by the land value increases that the community provides and many of their initial land was offered to their ancestors for free, and indeed before that stolen.

is there a good argument against such a new deal?

if a major issue is private debt and housing afforfability isn’t it profitable to get more citizens self sufficient?

city

21231953_343558162757868_443772864424137936_n

george3

09 PM

If you own land you dont even need the right to work since you can work the land and you can live self sufficiently so long as you have water.

Should government allow homesteading of land?

  • YES
  • NO
  • MAYBE

0 voters

1 Like
2

I’ve been thinking about the land issue myself.

TL;DR: I support an LVT. I support releasing crown land, but please make sure all land we plan on releasing is carefully accounted for based on heritage, environmental value etc. And good luck getting past the landowning opposition. I don’t think the idea of homesteading is going to be viable because we are for the most part highly interdependent human beings. You’re going to have to move suburbs, not individuals.

A major disincentive for people to move out is the lack of suburban interconnections, for want of better word.There’s this perception that if you go out into the country you’re going to be far away from friends, family, schools, your job, entertainment etc.

Then there’s these guys:


They oppose suburban sprawl (which is going to be an inevitable part of homesteading given a couple of years) because they believe in nature. You’ll have to deal with them. And maybe they’re right; maybe there is some intrinsic value that natural land holds for recreation or other purposes. So there’s something to think about.

They’ll be disappointed because increased land for them means their land is worth less. Also, they have more political power because they own the land which is rapidly becoming more expensive.

I hope you meant economical instead of profitable :confused: and if so then there are other costs to consider e.g. travelling to and from work, healthcare and sanitation, telecommunications, etc.

Wait. Is that Thomas Paine arguing for a UBI based off land taxes to people like Edmund Burke who was a landowner and counteracted Paine’s pamphlet with nationalist, conservative propaganda? I feel you may be Paine here.

1 Like
3

No. Unlike many decades ago there are very few people with skills enough to “homestead”. Living on/off land isn’t that easy. And once “homesteaders” discover the err … challenges, I suspect they’d head back to the city adding to the current problem.

Bullshit.

So, be subsistence farmers and live in Earthships huh? lol … no. Bad idea. It’s a step backwards.

3 Likes
4

Im not saying its a solution in of itself.
Just another potential point of relief.
No-one should be FORCED onto land, that would be immoral.
But they should have the option to homestead.
Land was created for the people not for the minority.

land
21430193_343101892803495_2943219946445212573_n
george2

5

What do you mean “created”?

1 Like
7

Woops perhaps i misspoke.
land exists now for …?

8

… many geological and astral reasons. Your two poll options are bullshit human social constructs.

2 Likes
9

@twisty
project

10

Look, I get it. The Good Life. Problem is, it ain’t easy. And, it’s still a step backwards. I can also see environmental problems with “homesteading” as weeds are introduced, waterways are fouled and ferals run amok.

And “astral” is my “woops”. I meant like planets and suns and gravity and stuff. Humans have no special claim here.

2 Likes
11

ferals run amok.

12

The history is quite interesting. There was a time when people in the UK when land was open, and anyone who felt they were being cheated or exploited could walk away and return to the land instead. Horrible exploitation only came about when the land was fenced off and people were forced to the city in droves and had no bargaining power, no alternatives to selling labour and were virtually slaves in the early industrial system.

Marxism came out of that but blamed the wrong target (capitalists), while letting the true culprits (land owners and the state) off the hook. It’s why the cure is worse than the disease with Marxism.

The answer is actually not that complex or radical. State interference has stripped away society’s historical access to the fruits of the commons. Homesteading is not a practical answer to that problem in a modern digital economy and a dry continent where virtually all fertile land is already held. Instead, we can share the rent from the land. UBI funded by LVT is the idealized answer; in the more practical world we have to settle for making steps in that direction.

Note the modern version of the fencing-commons thing is happening in a different way with the fencing of the creative commons under IP laws. History repeating itself.

4 Likes
13

The answer is actually not that complex or radical. State interference has stripped away society’s historical access to the fruits of the commons. Homesteading is not a practical answer to that problem in a modern digital economy and a dry continent where virtually all fertile land is already held.

The modern digital economy actually makes it more of an answer since its not just people who will work the land that can make the move, but those whom can work from computer as long as they can access the internet even if satelite is required.

I’m sure there is still idle non-barron land left.

UBI funded by LVT is the idealized answer;

Agreed.

in the more practical world we have to settle for making steps in that direction.

Disagree. One of the big allures is meant to be decreased Income Tax.
Sure, were simplyfing state taxes, but still we could go further and decrease PAYE tax.
Prosper recommends 6% from LVT and we have 1.5%?

Even Henry George realised that he would have to make a dent in order for it to be taken seriouly, hence he promoted the Single Tax. So as someone who is big on Georgism why should i join pirates if i could try to advance that cause further through some other party or independent means?

This homesteading is a policy which is very pirate and very freedom, so i dont think it should be dismissed outright out of hand when it increases the reach of LVT which is a win for all.

2 Likes
14

Homesteading is a very Niche lifestyle, I could see trying to support people who want to try it as a good idea by opening up some Zones with very favourable lease terms but I in no way see it as a solution to any of society’s problems

1 Like
15

Of course.
There are very few if any “solutions to everything” (aka final solutions).

But many hands do light work!

Another thing is when they were discussing where to put the homeless tent people?
Well, why not just let them pitch their tents in the public parks like Hyde Park?
If they aren’t allowed already they should be.

1 Like
16

Because homeless people don’t want to live in the bush and if there was a tent city in an urban area then it becomes very lucrative where everyone who is homeless wants to pitch a tent in the highly desirable location and deprives everyone else of those pubic facilities.

Better to address the underlying problems

Another TEMPORARY solution I could see it taking a very LARGE parcel of land/park (low use, enough room for everyone who wants to live that way) and opening up a free camping ground (with grounds keeping jobs) and with free shuttle to the train station (homeless travel on public transport without paying or getting a fine in nsw too?)

EDIT: TEMPORARY

2 Likes
17

yeh thats what i’m suggesting essentially. public land is for the public. if the society is configured in a way that produces some homeless people, we shouldn’t stigmatise them and call them shit, but allow them the land to live on and recover from problems etc safely and they can tend to their food via agriculture. no force needed (that’d be immoral), just give them the choice and encouragement.

1 Like
18

Tesla had invented a small machine for wine cellars, effectively small rectangular magentic forces that make the effective gravity somewhat negative for water vapour in the walls in wine cellars. That machine is now lost to all mankind. If someone can resurrect that, that would be effectively one additional floor ( done well ). Housing crisis. Shouting crisis. :grinning:

2 Likes
19

More housing does not necessarily require more land. In fact, I reckon we should be going the other way. More housing on less land.

Public lands should be increasing, not sold off or otherwise exploited. We really need ways to reverse some of the privatisations of the past (and present and future), then to bring currently private lands into the public domain.

I once offended a relative by suggesting that we build an arcology to replace Canberra. “We might be able to restore the sheep station” I joked. That went over well. :smirk: But that’s the way we should be thinking; reducing the footprint of cities and towns, not alienating more land.

3 Likes
20

the problem is that land is monopolised. foremostly by the government. the more decentralised ownership the better IMO. the LVT addresses the inefficient use of land ala the footprint.

sure its ok when the GOV is being lovey dovey and protecting national parks, but wait till they sell it to the coal station or fracking gas company that fucks up your water tables. private citizen ownership has the inherent incentive of self-interest for protection.

21

The problem with no public land, that as someone who owns no land, I am in effect excluded from all land. With public land, I have access to land even if it is shared amongst the entire population. I trust private companies less than I trust the government.