. "Initially it was disappointment, which then quickly turned to annoyance. Now the private sector is downright livid about the government\u2019s decision to scrap business rate relief on empty buildings. But how do you get the message across so that it means something to the public at large? \u2018It\u2019s like making the unemployed pay income tax,\u2019 said the British Property Federation (BPF) this week. That\u2019s a pretty powerful analogy. An alternative might have been \u2018it\u2019s like docking the benefits of disabled people who don\u2019t find jobs\u2019. Austin Macauley, editor, New Start Online magazine"@en . "Initially it was disappointment, which then quickly turned to annoyance. Now the private sector is downright livid about the government\u2019s decision to scrap business rate relief on empty buildings. But how do you get the message across so that it means something to the public at large? \u2018It\u2019s like making the unemployed pay income tax,\u2019 said the British Property Federation (BPF) this week. That\u2019s a pretty powerful analogy. An alternative might have been \u2018it\u2019s like docking the benefits of disabled people who don\u2019t find jobs\u2019. But they\u2019ve already done that. In fact, best not give those cash-strapped mandarins any more ideas. The decision to scrap rate relief earlier this year is one idea that some have estimated is now worth \u00A32bn to the government. It\u2019s not hard to see why \u2013 drive around most towns and cities and count the empty premises. What seemed a daft idea at the time now appears to be nothing short of ridiculous. \u2018Taxing hardship and business failure is a ludicrous way to help people through the hard times,\u2019 said BPF chief executive Liz Peace this week. In an open letter, the federation has urged Gordon Brown to reverse the decision. Among those backing the BPF is Asda, which apparently went as far as flattening a call centre to avoid empty rates. \u2018The government has imposed an ill-timed tax on empty properties which has had a number of unintended consequences,\u2019 said the supermarket giant. It had planned a \u00A3100m redevelopment of a 2.5ha site in New Barnet, Hertfordshire, but decided instead to demolish the building. It\u2019s rather like eating your telly to avoid paying the TV licence. While \u2018unintended consequences\u2019 like this are hardly likely to tug at Mr Brown\u2019s heartstrings, there are others that you\u2019d have thought might at least spark serious discussion of a U-turn. For starters, there are the thousands of smaller businesses which have had to close premises thanks to the credit crunch. Added to that are local authorities \u2013 Bristol Council is paying more than \u00A3380,000 a year on 56 vacant buildings. And then there\u2019s the damage it\u2019s doing to the government\u2019s oft-cited urban renaissance. As John Nicholls, boss of Leicester Regeneration Company, puts it: \u2018There is a lot of pre-emptive demolition going on. This is already having a visual impact \u2013 cities are beginning to look like broken teeth.\u2019 If the government doesn\u2019t act quickly our cities will soon have even less to smile about. Austin Macauley, editor, New Start Online magazine News - Index - Headlines - Comment - Global News - Image:Img13713.jpg Village pump - News UK SCA Wiki - Places, projects & networks - Ideas Bank - News - Diary - Resources - Community / Avoid adverts"@en . . . "New Start editorial November 3 2008"@en . .