#wicksteed

In Kettering, Northamptonshire (UK) there is a beautiful country park called Wicksteed park. It was set up historically by Charles Wicksteed, who aimed to create and preserve a green space for local people to spend their leisure time after WW1.

In recent years, the park has been badly managed, and they have been gradually selling parts of it off to build housing on, in the name of raising money for the park (despite receiving millions in lottery grants and other donations). They are now looking to build on even more of the land, further reducing the green space.

There is a large grassland area at the top of the park. It used to be a golf course for a while, and then it was converted back to wilder fields with meadow flowers etc growing. Since they did this, the wildlife in the area has dramatically increased. My family lives nearby, and they have seen a massive rise in the number and variety of birds visiting, (including birds of prey such as Red Kites), they also get many other creatures such as hedgehogs, grass snakes, foxes, toads, and insects visiting, when these had been on the decline before.

The park management has now admitted their intention to build on this land.

Suspicions were first raised when local residents witnessed officials first "soil sampling" and then conducting "archeology" on the land (their claims). However, when the park was contacted, they repeatedly insisted they had no plans to build there. Days later, a proposed building plan was discovered on the local council website, detailing plans for a significant housing estate. In response to that, the below petition was set up.

A couple of days later (after the park became aware of the petition and the anger from local residents) they suddenly announced that they are planning to build a gated community for people over 55 on the land. In the announcement, this was framed as a good thing, as it would allegedly make the park some income, so they claim they won't have to sell off any further land. However, whether or not the land is sold or technically retained by the park, the fact is, they still want to build over it. This will destroy the wildlife habitat and make further park land unavailable to local people.

In addition, the new plan announced has a number of differences to the one on the council website such as:

Access - will the new development be linked to the nearby pre existing housing estate? (Which already has poor infrastructure and traffic flow) or will it be accessed through the park itself (in which case, some kind of road would need to be installed, further destroying green space).

Number and type of housing - at this stage, this is unclear. The amount of land that will be taken is unknown. How viable any of it will be financially is unknown. If they were to build retirement type housing, the area currently has no access, no shops or amenities, and no public transport links nearby to get to Kettering town centre.

So far, the park management has attempted to tenuously justify their actions by stating it's what Charles Wicksteed would have wanted. This has been enough to get them some support, as (before the war and housing crisis) Wicksteed did originally intend to build a small amount of affordable housing for the workers of the park, and a small amount of historical bungalows were built at the other end of the park. However, since then, the park has torn down the old bungalows and replaced them with holiday lodges. In addition, the park of Wicksteeds time was surrounded by open countryside for miles. There was no significant housing nearby. This is now gone, and the park is one of the few green spaces Kettering has left.

This area of the park in particular is one of the few "wilder" areas, as the centre of the park is more landscaped and formal (so not as good for wildlife). It has a beautiful view overlooking the lake and is used by countless walkers and people picnicking. It is a really valuable space that it would be heartbreaking to lose.

Therefore, the petition now aims to:

a) get the park management to be honest about what exactly they are actually planning.

b) save the land and wildlife from being built over and destroyed.

Please help us, any support you can give will be so helpful in showing them that people do care and they can't get away with sneaking around and hiding their building plans. The link goes to the petition. Any shares/ reblogs will be really appreciated <3

Now let us prove our second proposition that M.s criterion is self contradictory

Diagr. reversed (Wick 566)

The two diagrams show exactly the same facts, i.e. the same proportion. It can be seen that the proportion which gives maximum marg. net return to labour gives a negative return to land ‒ and vice versa. The two maximums are therefore inconsistent and cannot be realized simultaneously. It will also be seen that the two average maximums coincide: therefore this maximum for all factors is not only desirable, but attainable for the entrepreneur.

In order to show that M.'s conclusion as to indep. of marg. returns to one factor is actually derived from the above criterion (marg.) of a maximum, we have only to remark that both curves, when one is at maximum marg., the other is at minimum: and that therefore returns to any one are at that point constant. The result is that the addition to product being exactly proportional to addition to factor it may properly be said to be due entirely to that factor, and quite unaffected by proportions. The same thing may be expressed thus: at max. marg. factors are perfect substitutes. [No, they are not. If at max. marg. labour we increase land, product decreases

[Remarks on elasticity of curve =1 , 2 , ∞ etc. Substitutes, complements, Johnson.]

We thus see that, if the premiss were right, also the conclusions would be so.

We can now see the mistake in M's note, p. 409. He has differentiated the marginal function at its maximum and has thus got zero: if he had differentiated it at the point of equilibrium (i.e. max. average) he would have found that it is a finite coefficient, and not at all negligible. [perhaps it can be shown that it is at its maximum: at least so in diagr. 1] If in that diagr. it can be shown that efficiency elasticity of marg. curve =1 , then the efficiency “diminishes by a quantity” which is equal (and not as M. says “very small relatively to”) to “that change”]

[In note at p 409 in the mathem. parenthesis M. seems to deal with the function of total efficiency: in the talk, two lines above, he deals with marginal efficiency]

V. in Wicksteed, Commonsense, diagrams pp. 569 for reversed curves of productivity, particularly the notes in pencil showing peculiar points in relations of two curves.

(There must be a point of elasticity 2: and here average product is double of marginal. Can it happen whatever the shape of the curves? Note that at that point the two factors are perfect substitutes; this seems to be a point in favour of Marshall, as equilibrium must always be in that neighbourhood.