Oh, Bravo, Bravo, Maestro!

In reference to the Cereal Killers cafe riot:

ricekrispallnacht

46 thoughts on “Oh, Bravo, Bravo, Maestro!”

  1. I once predicted that gentrification and rising property values would lead to violence in the streets in areas where there were a lot of the original inhabitants left to object.Huh!
    What you gonna do? Nothing as usual?I’ve suggested Land Value Tax. Whats your idea? (I’ll tell you :continued Land Price Inflation leading to higher rents and mortgages so ordinary people can’t afford to buy things and the economy collapses.Are you all in the pay of some foreign power?)

  2. But did you specify a time frame, Reedy?

    Also- let’s not confuse correlation with causality. Some people will riot for any old reason, and this (Cereal) mob seemed largely just up for the ruck.

  3. DBC Reed,

    Gentrification has always happened and LVT isn’t going to stop that. London has had richer businesses driving out less rich ones for decades. Covent Garden hasn’t been a fruit market for decades, and that’s because it doesn’t need to be, and the space can be used better.

    LVT will accelerate it as cash poor/asset rich people will be more likely to move somewhere cheaper. Older people who’ve been in the area for decades will move out to cheaper places (like my grandparents did when they retired in the 1970s).

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    DBC Reed – “I once predicted that gentrification and rising property values would lead to violence in the streets in areas where there were a lot of the original inhabitants left to object.Huh!”

    Did you predict that immigration would cause violence in the streets in the areas where there are a lot of the original inhabitants left?

    “What you gonna do? Nothing as usual?”

    Some people are turning poor value land into high value land. Why would anyone want to do anything about that?

  5. SMFS,

    I am puzzled by the problem with “gentrification”. OK, some people have to move. Sucks to be them. But what was their right to live there? Because they were born there?

    It’s peculiar how the “anti-gentrification” crowd are also the “pro-immigration” crowd. What’s the difference between some Londoner objecting to how his local area has changed because of yuppies moving in, and some bloke in Luton objecting to how his local area has changed because of the Pakistanis moving in?

  6. @DBC
    “I once predicted that gentrification and rising property values would lead to violence in the streets in areas where there were a lot of the original inhabitants left to object.”
    Like a lot of places, Shoreditch was a mix of low earnings housing, light engineeering/commercial, small retail- much of it failing.
    Then the leftie-trendies started moving in. Designery frockshops, whatever-analia sellers, the art supply warehouse – used to be the brewery… Same people took up whatever residential lettings became available – inflating letting prices. Progressively, the lefty-trendies pushed out any of the surviving commercial & made the area unaffordable for the original inhabitants. The butcher gets replaced by the hand thrown pottery emporium & £50 a throw. Now the area’s become leading edge-trendy & the smart money moves in.
    You don’t like gentrification, DBC? Then tell your trendy-lefty mates to stay away & keep their aromatherapy supplies to themselves.

  7. The Stigler: “It’s peculiar how the “anti-gentrification” crowd are also the “pro-immigration” crowd. “

    Or rather the ‘NO! It should happen to YOU, not ME!’ crowd…

  8. Reed: The whole point is that the troublemakers –including the fat henna’d hag with the megaphone* –aren’t local. The are the well-off middle-class leftist grunge/dinge element who have already colonised the area and are now unhappy about being seen off by weller-off (sic) middle/upper class elements moving in on them. Your slogan based thoughts fail to cut it as usual.

    * Ok the hair was more arterial red than henna but it doesn’t scan as well.

  9. Incidentally, some of the gentrification round that way is my work. Aldate High St, opp Brick Lane. Pistachio & pink, last time I saw them.
    Why I have absolutely no affection for London’s legacy architecture.
    Those buildings were absolute f**kers. Built over the old Met Line. The vibration of that & the sprinkling of bombs took the church down meant the fabric was cracked to hell. Weeks of work stitching it back together with steel, concrete & epoxy. It’s a shithole marketed as luxury flats.
    Why they don’t just nuke everything east of Bishopsgate out to … Romford’d be about right. Build some decent apartment blocks. Beats me.

  10. I’m writing this from my latest acquisition. 3 bed penthouse with terraces the size of a football field. Car parking at the basement level. The party-pad to beat all party pads. Cost less than a very, very small studio in Shoreditch. (If they do them that small….but wasn’t someone renting a garden shed erected in the corner of a living room, c’ording to the Standard? Shoreditch way. £100 a week for the privilege)
    Barking the Brits.Totally barking. (And that can be demolished too!)

  11. That, Mr Diogenes, is f***ing Brit-typical. Rathole commercial converted at eyewatering expense into a pseudo-Victorian folly.
    Why?

  12. bis: “Because it’s modern arky-tek-shure, innit?” The more I see of it, the less impressed I am. I can’t quite work out whether it’s the architects’ fault for producing something so hideous and impractical, or the clients’ for having such dreadful taste.

  13. @Philip Walker
    Oh, architects, for sure. A pestilence be upon them & their offspring unto the fourth generation.
    One I had for Aldgate had real copper drainpipes on the plans for the streetside fascade. In Aldgate High St FFS! We had the sprayed plastic replacements done ready for the day after the copper ones went up. Orginals didn’t even survive the week.

  14. You can have no appreciation of the magnitude of contempt I have for architects. The hours spent trying to turn their infantile fantasies into something can be actually done. Then THEY submit the plan revisions to the punter & bill them for THEIR charges

  15. bis
    Nearly bought a place like you describe down in Ayamonte 5 or 6 years ago. On a golf course, close to the beach….

    Fire sale price even for Spain. The crisis had hit. The centre of Bilbao real estate market is crazy, almost London crazy.

    Can’t remember why I didn’t buy. Lot of empty property due to crisis? Lots of mosquitos?

    But the place was fantastic.

  16. @DBCR: surely LVT speeds up gentrification? Because once an formerly poor area gets a few nicer bits/people buying houses and doing them up, then everyone’s LVT will rise in that area too. So whereas now rising rents drive out poorer tenants, but owner occupiers can stay put, under LVT a poor person in an up and coming area will have to leave regardless of whether they own or rent – either way, their income will be exceeded by their property charges, either rent or LVT.

    Thats the whole point of LVT in case you’ve missed it, people’s incomes, and the value of the property they inhabit have to be aligned. You will get ghettos of similarly wealthy people – no-one with a low income could live in a wealthy area, even if they inherited the house at zero cost. They just couldn’t afford the LVT. They would have to sell it to someone with the income who could afford the LVT.

    LVT would create income apartheid.

  17. Mossies, Bb? Inevitably. What put me off of living in the flatlands up Valencia way. Get eaten alive.
    Only standing water round here’s tonic with gin in it.

  18. Land Value Tax?

    So, people who’ve lived in the area for donkeys suddenly get hammered for vast tax demands due to nothing they’ve done and with nothing they can do to mitigate, so they have to move out.

    Yeah, that’ll address the grievances of gentrification all right.

  19. bis: you see, I’m torn between that explanation and the fact that they wouldn’t exist if there weren’t a market for poor taste. I suppose I can always call a plague on both their, um, houses. 🙂

  20. Andrew Duffin,

    “So, people who’ve lived in the area for donkeys suddenly get hammered for vast tax demands due to nothing they’ve done and with nothing they can do to mitigate, so they have to move out.”

    Well, they only “suddenly get hammered” because we stopped doing it. Rates, a variation of LVT, used to be a much larger percentage of taxation than today and people changed how they lived accordingly.

    As for “nothing they’ve done”, well, they have done something. They’ve enjoyed being near certain things of value maintained by the state. Land values are mostly created and destroyed by the state (except beachfront property given by nature). Why should I pay to improve a rail service in Kent, and then the people in Kent get a house price improvement out of it? Wouldn’t it be fairer if they pay that windfall to the rest of us for paying to improve that service?

  21. ” Why should I pay to improve a rail service in Kent, and then the people in Kent get a house price improvement out of it? Wouldn’t it be fairer if they pay that windfall to the rest of us for paying to improve that service?”

    Fair enough, but then you’re also demanding that people who live in run down areas pay the people who move in and tart things up and increase property prices, exactly as in the case in point. Which is hardly going to be popular. You’ve been happily living a rundown backwater for years, a load of hipsters turn up and property prices go through the roof, and you get a socking bill for extra LVT, and have to move out.

  22. ” Land values are mostly created and destroyed by the state”

    Bollocks frankly. Who created the Cotswolds? Not the State for sure. Private sector money made in the wool trade back in the Middle Ages, private money made elsewhere in creating the large estates in Georgian and Victorian times and private money today maintaining it.

  23. @DBC
    “I once predicted that gentrification and rising property values would lead to violence in the streets in areas where there were a lot of the original inhabitants left to object.”

    Hooray for you. You must feel vindicated.

    I once predicted that gentrification and rising property prices across the UK would result in most people feeling pretty good about themselves and their lot in life and to the consequent election of a Conservative Government as people left the envy-driven dribble of socialist policies behind.

    Hooray for me.

  24. “Wouldn’t it be fairer if they pay that windfall to the rest of us for paying to improve that service?”

    Sounds more like an argument for CGT on the sale of a primary residence than for a LVT, since there’s no windfall until the property is sold.

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    The Stigler – “Land values are mostly created and destroyed by the state (except beachfront property given by nature). Why should I pay to improve a rail service in Kent, and then the people in Kent get a house price improvement out of it? Wouldn’t it be fairer if they pay that windfall to the rest of us for paying to improve that service?”

    We have a way of trying to extract some value out of improvements like railway links. I don’t think they work well.

    But the State does bugger all to maintain land values. The people who live there do. We are in the midst of a massive change to cities like New York as Blacks get pushed out of places like Brooklyn and even the Bronx. Blacks occupy a lot of seriously good real estate. But no one in their right mind wants to live there. So the Zero Tolerance approach has jailed a significant proportion of young Black males and now it is safe for the Gays and the Two-income, No Kids yuppies to move in.

    Property prices are soaring. All that they needed to do was make it safe for White people to move in. If you look at places like the Bronx, those houses will be worth millions once there are no Black people there. They are worth next to nothing now. It is the people who create value. Not the state.

  26. Lucky no-one was killed on RIcekrispallnacht.

    Otherwise we’d have a cereal killer on our hands!

    Boom! Boom!

  27. Jim,

    “Fair enough, but then you’re also demanding that people who live in run down areas pay the people who move in and tart things up and increase property prices, exactly as in the case in point. Which is hardly going to be popular. You’ve been happily living a rundown backwater for years, a load of hipsters turn up and property prices go through the roof, and you get a socking bill for extra LVT, and have to move out.”

    And where has this happened? When have people tarting up their properties raised house prices by any significant degree?

  28. Jim,

    “Bollocks frankly. Who created the Cotswolds? Not the State for sure. Private sector money made in the wool trade back in the Middle Ages, private money made elsewhere in creating the large estates in Georgian and Victorian times and private money today maintaining it.”

    So, the state didn’t create artificial restrictions on land in the Cotswolds, like the Greenbelt at Chipping Norton?

    Historically, some parts of the Cotswolds were poor. Burford was very run down in the early part of the 20th century as it had no railway connection and only rose in value because it hadn’t developed and cars came along.

  29. abacab,

    “Sounds more like an argument for CGT on the sale of a primary residence than for a LVT, since there’s no windfall until the property is sold.”

    So, if I own a home and rent it out, I’m not going to be able to charge higher rents?

  30. SMFS,

    “But the State does bugger all to maintain land values. The people who live there do. We are in the midst of a massive change to cities like New York as Blacks get pushed out of places like Brooklyn and even the Bronx. Blacks occupy a lot of seriously good real estate. But no one in their right mind wants to live there. So the Zero Tolerance approach has jailed a significant proportion of young Black males and now it is safe for the Gays and the Two-income, No Kids yuppies to move in.”

    Hold on, the state does bugger all to maintain values, but house prices rise in areas of New York when the state starts policing it properly?

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    The Stigler – “Hold on, the state does bugger all to maintain values, but house prices rise in areas of New York when the state starts policing it properly?”

    Well OK. I accept that criticism. If the state did not prevent people protecting themselves and their property, the Bronx would have been safe to move into a long time ago.

    Laws and the police exist to protect criminals and suspected criminals after all.

  32. @the Stigler
    “When have people tarting up their properties raised house prices by any significant degree?”

    Pretty well everywhere.
    Let’s say you’re lurking in your unreformed Victorian slum. The slums either side of you are bought by the sort of people masturbate to TV house renovation programs. So they do the repointing & the new window frames & the extra bathroom & possibly the loft extension. And these do indeed add value to their properties.
    Your hovel has the same potential as the ones either side. Home design TV masturbators like to herd. They’ll clump in Barnet but never stray to Barnsley. So your hovel becomes a candidate for refurb. And attracts a price premium.
    Amusingly, that price premium will usually be roughly the cost of doing the refurb, raises the price of the house. But estate agents & wise builders keep that bit of info to ourselves.

  33. Come to think of it, I’ve been juggling these figures for myself. I own a rather tired UK property. Doing it up will add £50k to the selling price. Which would be about the cost of doing it up.
    However, I’m decidedly grey economy on things like this. It’ll cost me 15. So the dust’ll be flying next month.

  34. “Historically, some parts of the Cotswolds were poor. Burford was very run down in the early part of the 20th century as it had no railway connection and only rose in value because it hadn’t developed and cars came along.”

    Historically the Cotswolds were very wealthy, hence the lovely buildings built with that money. Then the wool trade disappeared, and yes the Cotswolds became much poorer. All without State input. Then the Georgian and Victorian industrialist types built big country estates, again with private money, hence all the lovely countryside and stone walls. Finally the private sector built railways, and invented cars and lorries, and Bob’s your uncle, people moved there because it was such a nice area to live. All the State did was build some roads, which they also did around Hull, but I don’t see the likes of Liz Hurley moving there because of the wonderful State provided infrastructure.

  35. All the State did was build some roads, which they also did around Hull, but I don’t see the likes of Liz Hurley moving there because of the wonderful State provided infrastructure.

    Absolutely and this is why I’m totally unimpressed by all the arguments that claim infrastructure spending drives growth and regeneration. It’s become the prime argument in favour of HS2 but if it’s true why aren’t we building high speed railways to the Scottish Highlands ? Rannoch Moor is a prime real estate sight just waiting to take off as an economic powerhouse, if only it had some infrastructure.

    Also what Jim said about LVT, the libertarian version of the five year plan, it’s all there on paper and it’ll work perfectly nothing could possibly go wrong.

  36. Pingback: Angry Birds! | Orphans of Liberty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *