Today's Evening Standard reports on a nice bit of bitching going on as to who should pay London's modest contribution towards the costs of building Crossrail, but let's assume that £3.5 billion is a known figure.
Remembering The Golden Rules, 1) User charges are better than taxes and 2) Ideally, there's no taxation without representation, here's how I think they should do it. There will be about 30 new stations/stops. (Actually 35, but some are very close together). The people who will benefit most are people who own land and buildings within (say) one mile of a new station. People who rent premises don't benefit much, as their rent goes up to soak it up. If we divide £3.5 billion by 30 stations, and divide that by 9.73 million square yards (the surface area within one circular mile), we get a nice round cost of £12 per square yard. Let's call that £1.20 per square yard in perpetuity to allow for interest and so on.
You then have a straightforward referendum, if you are happy to pay an extra £1.20 per square yard per year (about £300 on the Council Tax for an average-sized London terrace, rather less for a flat and so on, and the corresponding amount on Business Rates, depending on how big the plot size is) in exchange for having Crossrail, then vote "yes", else vote "no". End of.
This is just for illustration, it may be fairer to split this into bands of 0 to 0.5 miles away (who pay double); 0.5 to 1.0 miles away (who pay the normal rate) and 1.0 to 2.0 miles away (who pay half rates), in which case the charge per square yard would be about 80p; 40p and 20p respectively. This would equate to additional Council Tax of between £50 and £200 per annum, depending on how near you lived to a new station. I suppose we could put that as a third alternative.
No doubt somebody will point out that there are farms within these areas, and that a farmer can't afford to pay that much tax. Well, firstly they get a vote; and secondly, once the stations are built they'll have no problem selling off a bit of land for housing or commercial uses. They'd only have to sell off an acre or two to cover the tax on the rest.
What's not to like?
A grim document
2 hours ago
5 comments:
As a former north Londoner I would have been far more interested in a cross-rail north-south link if only to avoid the wastelands of Croydon.
Your point that "once the stations are built they'll have no problem selling off a bit of land for housing or commercial uses" is of interest, greater London grew in the way that it did precisely because speculative railway/tube builders ( many of whom went bust just like .com ) built the railways that they did and speculative builders followed to produce the outer London suburbs for the workers of central London.
I might conclude that the cross-rail link is a Socialist venture, doomed to failure and/or permenant subsidy.
I predict a heavy majority for "no". ;)
B, see next post.
AC, that's fine. All the evidence points to Crossrail being a good investment, but in a democracy, people are perfectly entitled to vote for the stupid option.
The main problem with your suggestion is that it involves those most directly affected having a say, instead of just accepting what the powers-that-be say is good for them, as is right and proper, quite apart from your closer targetting being far too much like hard work for Boris's apparatchiks.
Otherwise I think it's an excellent idea. I'd certainly be prepared to pay a little extra on my council tax for a better rail service on my local line, so long as I knew it wasn't going to be diverted into the trendy cause de jour.
B, thanks. The book-keeping is a difficult issue (how do you ensure that Crossrail won't waste it all on diversity advisers), but not an insurmountable one.
Post a Comment