29th May 2009, 01:04 AM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building
On this same basis why do we not get developers to contribute to a general fund for building materials. In conservation areas it is usually a requirement to pay for nice bricks which when compared to the cost of a tin out of town retail shed. This would obviously even out of the cost of building across districts or counties (at whatever level the fund was held). We could simply impose a fee on all developments based upon the area of their cladding ? cheap cladding could then be supplied by the council for out of town retail sheds and nice bricks or stone for conservation areas.
This makes about as much sense as imposing a blanket charge on all developers for archaeology.
(actually this would probably kill most out of town shopping nastiness and is potentially a very good idea)
Hmmn. I get the joke here but I think you?re missing the point. Take the concept Oxbeast raised of externality (check the wiki link). Building materials are not ?external? to the economic transaction of developing, selling and buying a house; they are an intrinsic factor. The choice of building material is mutually beneficial to both parties in the trade. Excellent quality building materials will add value to the building and this will be reflected in the price; the inverse is also true. The externality here comes in whether or not the building material is in keeping with adjacent buildings, or to take your example, whether it impacts on the visual amenity of the conservation area. Regulation is required here to ensure that the private cost is balanced against the public benefit, but this will be easy to apply because it already has a quantifiable market logic. The premium cost of the building materials required to develop in these areas can be passed on to the buyer because of the social desirability to live in these areas. It?s internalised within the transaction, unlike buried archaeology, that adds no value whatsoever to the final development.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
"With no way to monetise this elusive quality of understanding in a meaninful way, another method is needed to impose solutions and balance the private costs against the public benefit.
The public benefit (and 'satisfactory result') is defined by the regulators; the curators define what the results should be according to various national and local standards. This operates in a similar way to other regulated markets with defined standards, see ofcom, ofgem, etc.
The regulation you describe deals very effectively with negative externalities ? the destruction of the archaeological deposits, mitigated through the creation of a permanent record. If this is all that?s required of a satisfactory result then bingo. What it doesn?t deal with very well is the positive externalities ? what might be called academic and public archaeology - the sharing of knowledge and the pleasure of the past. This is something many of us involved in commercial archaeology still do, but because the present market structure doesn?t internalise this cost (as it does in historicbuilding?s example of bricks and mortar) that benefit has always been a bonus, a value added, driven by staff passion and pride.
My point about the ?new normal? is that this wigggle room has now evaporated. People live, people die, get over it.
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast
"Christ, I'm sounding like a tory. Honestly I'm not. I would also add that it would be extremely difficult to get support for a tax on development.
One way or another we?re all Thatchers children! Good points about the developer tax, clearly its not without issue. But there are other countries that practice a socialist approach to development-led archaeology without bursting into flames. Would anyone like to comment from their experience of these systems? I?d like to hear how the French do it...
http://www.diggingthedirt.com