Irish Rising just added me to this group and dont know the particulars of Galways situation. I am the director of Saving Communities, which treats the earth as a commons, to which all have an equal right of access. This is in line with early American progressivism (which has a strong Irish connection via Michael Davitt and the radicalism of 19th-century Irish Americans). We see three kinds of rights involved: natural rights, compensatory rights (when natural rights have been violated, and contractual rights. The natural right to the earth includes the right to water. Those who say you are paying for purification and delivery beg the question of why the water is impure in the first place, and why people have been crowded into places where they need water delivered. The natural right of access to the earth includes the right of access to water that is scattered across the earth. Delivery of water and removal of sewage can be seen as a very partial compensation to those from home access to land has been expropriated. After all, people with adequate land need not worry about gathering enough water, especially in Ireland, and they can fairly easily return their waste to the earth in healthy ways. This suggests that a tax on land values should fund water delivery and waste removal. It should not be entirely limited to a tax within each service area, for those who have expropriated the nations land have driven people into those crowded areas. The third right is the contractual right. People often argue that thee is no contract between people unless they have jointly signed a document, but any lawyer will tell you that the document is just *evidence* of the contract. The actual contract is the set of understandings on which people interact. So, when people agree to live in a place because it is served by roads, water lines, sewer, etc., they do so with the understanding that the infrastructure will be maintained at a reasonable cost. For that reason, it has always been a violation of common law to close an existing road, change a free road into a toll road, allow a public toll road to be privatized, or use the revenue from a toll road for any purpose other than upgrading and maintaining that particular road. This suggests a common-law argument against privatizing water and sewer. In terms of tying costs to benefits, the biggest cost of water and sewer is the fixed infrastructure. Water and sewer lines running past a vacant lot deteriorate just as quickly as those running past an occupied lot where water is consumed. Moreover, an urban or suburban lot would be worth far less if it lost access to water and sewer lines. In a poor area, the lot isnt worth very much anyhow, but a lot in a richer area is worth a small fortune. Making people pay for the infrastructure portion of water system through a land value tax is far more consistent with cost/benefit arguments than charging according to water consumption. In terms of economic vitality, charging a land value tax is most burdensome to those who hold land vacant or grossly underused in prime areas (central business distrricts, upscale neighborhoods, etc.). Taxing land values will stimulate the economy by getting these people to put their land to use or turn it over to others who will do so. In contrast, making water expensive will encourage people who need water to go elsewhere. Anyhow, thats the economics as I see it. Heres a general explanation on land value tax: savingcommunities.org/issues/taxes/landvalue/
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 19:48:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015