Letter: Urban worrier
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. 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