Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

OK anniebach you are right - the word landlord has been mistakenly used. But what does it matter? It is quite clear that durhamjen was talking about owners who deliberately keep one, or several, properties empty for an indeterminate length of time. Most of these buyers are so wealthy that they don't need the bother of having tenants. They just park their money discreetly in this country and rely on the wealth generated by the rise in price of the property to provide a handsome profit.

In my view, this is a humanitarian crisis - people who have been terribly traumatised still have no idea if they will have a permanent home in the area or the terms on which these homes will be granted. I believe that in a disaster situation such as this, it is not unreasonable for K&C to use some of the £374 million - accrued through making draconian cuts in every area of public services - to buy some properties, and for the government to also provide money. After all, the government was willing to provide a contribution of £30 million for an unnecessary and environmentally suspect garden bridge, until the scheme was scuppered by Sadiq Khan. Boris Johnson wasted £5 million on the "Boris Island" airport project and several million on the fairly pointless "Dangleway" cable cars from the Greenwich Peninsula to the Royal Albert Docks - a route that was only heavily used during the Olympics. If money can be found for these vanity projects, then surely it should be found in a disaster such as this.

"There are plenty of flats for sale in North Kensington, but local estate agents say a two-bedroom home would cost at least £600,000 - so buying individual properties could cost more than £50m."

How much has Kensington Borough got in reserve?

Last winter, footballers in Manchester allowed the homeless to live in a hotel they had bought, before doing it up properly this year.
I wonder how many properties can be shared among friends and families like that?

Over a thousand empty properties in Kensington. Why is that not enough?

There is the whole difficult political issues around the RBKC and their attitudes to social housing but realistically if there is not enough property and no room to build more within a sensible time frame then it cannot be done.

Finding enough empty properties to replace the accommodation to rehouse the number of people who were in Grenfell Tower, when such a huge number of homes have suddenly vanished from the housing stock overnight is nigh impossible.

Is there actually enough ground space to put new buildings up there?
Trying to rehouse most of the people back in that area right away is probably just not possible.
I am not making excuses just trying to be realistic.

Prices of properties are high here because second homers will pay for holiday homes, it is not stealing

Requisitioning is far more like borrowing for a limited time and paying rent while doing so but the Council will choose the tenant rather than the owner or agent. Not the same as compulsory purchase.
I'm not sure that the villagers of Tyneham, Imber and other places would agree with that.

If these billionaires paid for their mansions then it cannot be stealing.
However, it pushed up the values and people were priced out of the area, but that is another matter altogether.

And nothing like stealing.

Why are Russian and Qatari billionaires not accused of stealing our housing?

Requisitioning is far more like borrowing for a limited time and paying rent while doing so but the Council will choose the tenant rather than the owner or agent. Not the same as compulsory purchase.

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-ghost-town-of-the-super-rich-kensington-and-chelseas-buy-to-leave-phenomenon-9207306.html

Tax means nothing to most of the owners, as they are in offshore companies.

I don't like the idea that the state can requisition private property. It is nothing to do with supporting the rich against the poor, it includes compulsory purchase of ordinary homes too.

Private property is the property of its owner. Requisitioning it by the state is theft, as much as a pickpocket taking your purse from your pocket, and that applies to expensive property and to the modest properties referred to just above too. Finding it unacceptable that "local authorities have used, and attempted to use, compulsory purchase powers in order to clear London estates, as part of the process of gentrification." while advocating the compulsory take-over of more expensive property has a whiff of double standards.

To sanction one act of official theft is to create a precedent for government to solve ALL its responsibilities by removing an asset from its owner, instead of getting the public budget right and using taxes for necessary expenditure.

That becomes any asset from any owner. I hear the sound of totalitarian dogma there. Next bit of dogma is "property is theft" - therefore the state will relieve you of it, whoever you are and however little you have.

Forced "donation" of property and assets to the state is a tool of a dictatorship, even when the steel tool is encased in the velvet glove of caring.

When local authorities are short of accommodation to rent out but private individuals (or consortiums) can build property and leave it unused, that shows that the tax structure needs an overhaul. It should not be more profitable to leave housing unused than to have it occupied.

Number of homes landbanked by builders.

I read the other day that we are in for a house price crash so these owners may be heading for a shock.

^However, my point was that it seems to be okay to have the homes of the poor requisitioned, but not those of the rich which have been empty for up to 15 years.
Why do you think that is?^
Where did I say that it was OK to have the homes of the poor requisitioned but not those of the rich?



I said it was heartbreaking and many of the owners were against what was being sold to them as a 'good idea - regeneration'.

Every day 150 families become homeless in Britain, according to Shelter.
Unfortunately with the Grenfell fire, they are all in the same place.
However, there have never been fewer than 1000 empty properties in Kensington in the last decade. Who are these people who do not care about the homeless of Grenfell?
Who are these people who are allowed to landbank for ten years or more?
These properties are not left to get dilapidated and dusty. They are cleaned and taken care of, more than the social housing estates.

Perhaps there should be a statutory limit on how long an empty property can be regarded as temporarily not in use and then it becomes permanently and deliberately left empty and liable for a heavy tax.

Then they should appeal to the humanity of the owners, and the stress the advantages of "lending" their property to the state for a stated time until other accomodation can be found. As it is the emphasis is as though the requisition is a punishment on the owners for leaving the properties empty. That is not likely to encourage them to co-operate.

If I bought a business property which had a specific use I would not be able to change the use unless I applied for and was granted planning permission. In my opinion a residential property bought purely as an investment (it's called land-banking) and deliberately left empty, constitutes a change of usage and should be subject to planning laws just the same. A substantial fine based on the houses' market value would soon stop this.

No -one is talking of stealing these properties - if requisitioned the landlords/owners whichever - will get compensation in some form. - probably rent paid to them and maybe not pay the Council tax or something. The property would be given back when it was no longer needed.
If there was the possibility of this happening maybe the properties themselves would lose some of the appeal and gradually come down in price to a level people with fairly normal incomes could buy - revitalise the areas!

People are far more important than an empty property.

Where did you get the idea that anyone wants to steal or break into private property, roses?
You do come up with some weird ideas.

"Controversially, local authorities have used, and attempted to use, compulsory purchase powers in order to clear London estates, as part of the process of gentrification. As I write, there is an ongoing debate about whether Southwark council can force the eight remaining leaseholders from the Aylsebury estate. It seems odd that conservative commentators are so loud on the subject of the rights of the owners of unoccupied mansions in Kensington, but so quiet about the property rights of those in working class estates who bought their homes."

Homes will be found for the former tenants of Grenfell without resorting to either stealing or breaking into private property!

"Private property is always and everywhere backed up by state compulsion and threat of violence. This is true whether the government continues with the status quo, or whether it decides to requisition properties in Kensington. Private property cannot exist without the apparatus of the state to protect and enforce it. This is the basic foundation of modern capitalist economies.

When conservative commentators object to Jeremy Corbyn's proposal to requisition empty properties, it is not because they disagree with state compulsion and threat of violence. What they are really objecting to is the idea that the state should intervene to advance the interests of the poor, rather than to protect the interests of the rich. "

www.opendemocracy.net/uk/laurie-macfarlane/theresa-may-has-prioritised-rights-of-absentee-landlords-over-grenfell-victims