Letter: Urban worrier
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I found the reported attitude of the Countryside Alliance to the idea of ending Miras tax relief on homes built on greenfield sites curiously negative (Your Money, 16 January). In this predominately rural district residents do not want to see green fields disappear under concrete to meet an insatiable and inherently self-defeating mass demand to "live in the countryside".
Certainly, existing property and residents must not be penalised, but abolishing Miras on new greenfield developments is, potentially, a powerful lever to protect both the countryside and existing residents' interests, and the measure must get serious debate. Of course it will not please the $40,000-per-house land-value hopefuls.
KEN BLANSHARD
Burgess Hill
The writer is leader of Mid Sussex district council
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments