There is an interesting story coming out of Rosses Point, County Sligo, Ireland, that a Church of England vicar and his wife are seeking to be paid ground rent on some land that her great, great grandfather, William Middleton, acquired sometime before 1875. He owned the entire community, except for the church. Apparently the people who have resided on that land over the intervening years are supposed to have been paying annual ground rent to his heirs, or "buying out" the ground rent. Either would benefit his heirs with value to which neither he nor they have contributed anything other than what nature provided. (I think we can reasonably assume that any improvements he made to the land -- fences, drainage, stumping, septic systems, etc -- are long gone after 135 years.)
Most of the Middleton family left Ireland, some as long as 90 years ago. Apparently no ground rent has been paid in the past 35 years.
According to one of the articles,
In the 1970s, locals traced Middleton family members across the globe, and reached a deal where many bought their ground rent for sums of around IR£100.
But some did not clinch agreement, leaving uncertainty over the ground on which their homes was built, which is in one of the most valuable locations in the north-west.
This raises all sorts of interesting questions about the logic and justice of our laws. Who has made that land worth anything? Is it the heirs of William Middleton? Is it the taxpayers of the community in which the land is located, who presumably have supplied services to these properties? Is it the people who live in or work in or visit that community?
And then comes the important question. Putting aside what the law says, who is entitled to that land rent? Is it the descendants of the 1875 owner? Is it the current tenants? Is it the community in which those lots are located?
Which of these is a logical and just way to run a society so that all of us can thrive and prosper? How should we fund the public goods and services which make a community a good place to live? Taxing sales within the borders? Taxing the wages of residents or workers within the border? Taxing the buildings within the border? Or collecting some, even all, of the annual rental value of the land for public purposes?
There are properties in midtown Manhattan owned by trusts "granted" by people who have been dead for many decades. Those who want to use that land pay land rent, year in and year out, to the beneficiaries of those trusts, decade after decade. Mostly likely that rent escalates over time, as the residents, taxpayers and tourists who use Manhattan contribute their tax dollars and their presence to providing the services which make Manhattan what it is. So why on earth do we tax wages, sales, hotel rooms, buildings of all kinds, rather than collecting the rent for public purposes?
The Rosses Point heir's husband is quoted as follows:
Mr Chave-Cox said: “You know I am a vicar. Vicars are honest and clear about things. All we want is what’s right and fair and sort things out. Presumably that means people buying up the ground rent.”
I wonder how much they feel they are entitled to receive in 2010.
I seem to remember it being said that "The Earth is the Lord's." Which Lord? And what are the implications for ordinary people?
You can read more at
Comments