Post by flores61 on Sept 17, 2011 5:45:44 GMT -5
The White Paper on Land Development set out two main objectives with regard to the government’s policy of bringing land under development, but owned by the public. The two objectives were:
(1) To enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its needs and priorities; and
(2) To restore to the community the increase in the value of land arising from its sincere efforts
The first objective has already been referred to and will be considered later in the context of the Community Land Act enacted earlier. It is with the second objective that we are concerned with here.
The White Paper’s view is quite clear:
The growth in value, more especially of urban sites, is due to no expenditure or capital or thought on the part of the landowner, but entirely owing to the energy and enterprise of the community . . . it is undoubtedly one of the worst evils of our present system of land tenure that instead of reaping the benefit of the common endeavor of its citizens, a community has always to pay a heavy penalty to its landlords for putting up the value of their land.
But can this argument stand up to economic analysis? Or do its foundations rest solely on an emotional appeal? It is easier said than done. On the one hand the dominance of the private sector is due to the failure of the public sector government controlled housing development agencies to provide adequate housing amenities to a large section of the population.
Today in Kochi Apartments do have many takers mainly due to the fact that even though it is a costly investment, people do not think twice because of the possibility of the real estate investment appreciating in value within a short period of time. Thus in spite of the consistent refrain from the urban development experts leaning to a particular ideology against the apartment developments, a vast majority of the people consider the apartments as one of their favorite investment options.
(1) To enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its needs and priorities; and
(2) To restore to the community the increase in the value of land arising from its sincere efforts
The first objective has already been referred to and will be considered later in the context of the Community Land Act enacted earlier. It is with the second objective that we are concerned with here.
The White Paper’s view is quite clear:
The growth in value, more especially of urban sites, is due to no expenditure or capital or thought on the part of the landowner, but entirely owing to the energy and enterprise of the community . . . it is undoubtedly one of the worst evils of our present system of land tenure that instead of reaping the benefit of the common endeavor of its citizens, a community has always to pay a heavy penalty to its landlords for putting up the value of their land.
But can this argument stand up to economic analysis? Or do its foundations rest solely on an emotional appeal? It is easier said than done. On the one hand the dominance of the private sector is due to the failure of the public sector government controlled housing development agencies to provide adequate housing amenities to a large section of the population.
Today in Kochi Apartments do have many takers mainly due to the fact that even though it is a costly investment, people do not think twice because of the possibility of the real estate investment appreciating in value within a short period of time. Thus in spite of the consistent refrain from the urban development experts leaning to a particular ideology against the apartment developments, a vast majority of the people consider the apartments as one of their favorite investment options.