to ask what you think about Corbyn and Lammy's suggestion that houses of the rich should be requisitioned to give to homeless Grenfell victims?

[nutter19]

I am not sure what to think about it. On the one hand I agree that there are a lot of very big houses in the borough that are empty and could be used to house the homeless rather than left empty.

On the other hand, it seems a bit sinister to think they would just take private property off those they deem rich.

What do other people think?

The sad thing is, if it was TM suggesting using this legal, often-used method of making housing available, I reckon you'd all be praising her benevolant strong and stableness. "Oh it's only right, she's doing the right thing by these people, what a brave thing to do, good on her!"

in the long run, it's the best thing for the economy.

I don't disagree with that chilipepper, but I think you need to avoid a crash landing as there can be a lot of associated damage. If you can have a steady, managed decline you can avoid a lot of short term pain.

I'd be fine with:

Additional council tax on empty properties (multiples of normal rate, exemptions for e.g. bereavements and people working away for >2 years).

Regulate the rental sector more thoroughly, in terms of rent capping (see Amsterdam's points system for example), landlord registration (e.g. landlords must demonstrate sufficient capital/resources to adequately maintain property on initial registration then on an ongoing basis) and safety standards (strict rules, regular inspection and official body to monitor). Employ adequate numbers of people to monitor these measures.

Greater protections for tenants (longer security of tenure for example, inability to evict certain vulnerable classes of tenant e.g. disabled, single mother, as in Germany n.b. Landlord has right to sue for unpaid rent though to prevent abuse of protections).

Ability to sue for non-payment of property taxes, penalties to include forfeiture of property to pay the debt.

2!

Under what authority sea?

Initially people defended JC saying he meant EDMO. Well he can't have meant that because they don't generally apply to second homes.

Then people said compulsory purchase. But how would that work quickly? The LA would need to apply properly for the orders. The owners would contest. Such cases often take years.

Then people say under the same emergency powers used in a sustained war effort and used by the state to house miliatary personnel. These 'acquisitions' were never meant to be permanent ( though some ended up so and the owners had to be compensated down the line).

What these residents need is a properly thought through plan as to where they will go now. And where they will be rehoused permanently
Giving the state emergency powers to take/buy property without the owner having any recourse to answer is a major change to the law both specifically and constitutionally.

JC voted for the Human Rights Act which rules it out.

I hope the survivors can be rehoused within RBKC too but the Council cannot magic up that many homes out of nowhere overnight.

And when these houses are wrecked /damaged who pays?

oohmavis what method?

Which method could be used quickly, effectively and legally here?

I'm mostly quite Tory BUT I support this policy, not just for Grenfell Tower residents but the many homeless people in London generally.
It is shameful that we have properties left empty while their owners wait for prices to inflate, and then families living 4 to a room while they wait for council housing.
If owners didn't agree agree to the requisitioning of their property I would tax them a lot (e.g. the market value of the property each year).
It is a socialist policy, but I think it would have good results. First, people would be safe and housed in their communities; second, it would aid in addressing the lack of social/affordable housing in London without needing to whack up taxes; and third it would probably dampen down the London market quite quickly, which is needed. I'm a homeowner in a nice part of a London and virtually everyone I know in a similar position thinks we need a major market adjustment.
I like the free market generally, but London's housing market is not serving many of the people who live here and that's terrible.

So, after placard after placard of the socialist worker and communist brigade last night, now the Grenfell residents group have had to cancel their planned march. What a shame, their march is directly involved in this tragedy, they were at the forefront of battling the council, how powerful to seeing them march. Who would have joined them. But its been cancelled because of of corbyns mob. Awful.

Then people said compulsory purchase. But how would that work quickly? The LA would need to apply properly for the orders. The owners would contest. Such cases often take years.

This is the kind of detail that JC and the like conveniently overlooks.

I note that Natalia has spoken a lot of sense on this thread and has been continually ridiculed by a few of the more entrenched posters here.

The sad thing is, if it was TM suggesting using this legal, often-used method of making housing available, I reckon you'd all be praising her benevolant strong and stableness.

Have you read a single news report in the past week about TM?

rythm I agree with most of your list there. There is a massive problem with rogue landlords in general in the UK and poorer housing and councils do not use their powers to get them in line at all.

I am despairing of people in general.

I don't want a hand-wringing empathic PM - if I did I would have voted Labour

They want "justice" - and what precisely would that be?

They want the dead found and identified - well not if it risks emergency service lives and unlike CSI DNA will take many weeks to process.

It is a clear example of the "now" generation.

I'm so disappointed that the Grenfell residents have been hijacked by socialist workers

We'd lose a lot as a society if property rights weren't respected. The consequences would be far reaching.

That said the empty "investment" properties in London are grotesque, and the tax system in our country needs to be changed to discourage this phenomenon.

I think there's a huge appetite in London for discouraging foreign property investment.

But that's a separate issue to requisitioning those properties under emnergebcy powers.

The idea of requisitioning private property for this purpose is absurd.

As PP have said, it would destroy investor confidence and PM Jeremy would have no money for his projects.

Theresa May didn't cause this.

"The rich" generically didn't cause this.

Whoever first had the idea that any building cladding material could be FLAMMABLE caused this.

I don't want to hear about rules for its proper use. We all know rules are broken and corners are cut, all the time.

I also think it's awful that the extreme left rentamarch mob have co-opted and dominated the residents. Just awful.

Do you not think the residents have minds of their own then?

I also think it's awful that the extreme left rentamarch mob have co-opted and dominated the residents. Just awful.

Or the residents/ local people might actually be making their own minds up to March as they're furious.

I'm not seeing a huge issue with it tbh, I'm assuming it'd be some sort of fixed term emergency rental agreement at the rate they were paying for their original housing until a longterm solution is in place rather than actually taking people's property from them.

^ this

It is a clear example of the "now" generation.

cdtaylor am I reading your post correctly? You're criticising the survivors of this atrocity for wanting to know if their friends and relatives are indeed dead?

This rule is indeed for other people - those who are sitting on empty flats bought with no intention of allowing anyone to actually live in them.