From the comments at The Guardian:
KLN 1. "What happens when all land owners sell sell their property to the lowest bidder, run for the hills and the economy become non-existent?"
KLN 2. "LVT will allow rich people to live in the best areas and push poorer people out as the town develops. The well to do will live within walking distance of the local amenities - including the best schools..."
Are those two not complete opposites? Both are wrong (KLN 1 being wronger than KLN 2), but they cancel each other out.
So what's it to be, you Homey twats? The rich will sell up and move abroad, or the rich will happily pay to be in nice areas? The poor will live in slums, or poor will snap up the nicer homes which the rich abandoned?
Debate Magazine
