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?

I specifically said "temporarily leased". Purchase of houses isn't necessary. There is an acute need for places to house people until a more permanent solution is found. I'm not suggesting that we hand over Kensington Palace to a workers' soviet in perpetuity. Not all of the empty properties in West London will be multi-million pound penthouses either. Some will just be ordinary empty flats that landlords haven't filled yet or which don't typically accept people in receipt of housing benefits.

There is no law that allows the state to remove private property temporarily, is there? Not one that could be used in this situation?

No and nor should there be.

Owners living abroad are also human beings and the Human Rights Acr protects them too. You could have s xenophobic law restricting foreigners from buying - for the future - but unless you do foreign owners have the same rights as any others.

I wonder if Shami Charkrabati has commented on any of this?

There is no law that allows the state to remove private property temporarily, is there? Not one that could be used in this situation?

I don't know but laws can be passed. That, after all is what parliament is about.

Of course laws can be passed.
But they have to (generally) be drafted, laid before the house, debated and voted on.

As a democracy we're not too keen on the state giving itself powers without due process.

Also any laws that are passed must fall within certain international laws.

I believe I asked this before, but do people appreciate the difference between compulsory purchase and requisitioning, or perhaps even wonder why Corbyn carefully referred to the latter? And do they realise that CP involves a lengthy process and certainly doesn't allow for the Grenfell victims being housed straight away - if ever, given the clever lawyers some property owners can probably afford?

While on the subject of practicalities, what's proposed for those properties with a mortgage which disallows renting? And what about insurance and/or damage - who would be responsible for that? This thing about the arrangement being "temporary" too ... will the Council pay the owner's legal fees if someone refuses to leave, or will some insist the "rich owners" should pay themselves for something which was never their choice?

Engaging in some kind of class campaign is all very well, but there's more to think about than that

It's just a disgraceful sequence of events. I can almost guarantee that Grenfell tower won't be replaced with LHA housing. Most likely a luxury apartment block or something.

I get that there's a shortage in the area, but rehousing them outside of their borough smacks of social cleansing to me.

I only mention CPOs as they show that property ownership isn't entirely sacrosanct and that we accept in some situations that people can be forced to relinquish rights over their property. I realise that the two things are legally different. We probably don't have any chance of requisitioning property for the fire victims but I do think there is a debate to be had about whether compulsory leasing of empty properties should be made a possibility for disaster relief in the future.

Often empty properties are being in the process of being re allocated /re let etc. It takes time. I doubt it's very fair to take away a young persons house this week when they themselves are moving in next week!

Headofthehive55

When has anyone said they're taking the houses off young people? They're not. They want to temporarily use some of the MANSIONS that have been empty for years and years, owned by faceless off-shore corporations.

As it stands, it looks a lot like fanning flames.

That is one fucking tasteless metaphor.

This link is for previous posters who have mistaken my concern about respecting property rights as some sort of apologia for the 0.01%:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_Polar

If we don't have a stable rule of law and enforceable property rights we are headed for a third world economy.

That said we could tweak the tax system so that holding empty property in London wasn't such an attractive, tax efficient option for the super rich.

The Queen could offer to take all the people left homeless into Buckingham Palace so they can stay local.

Empress-that's a very valid way of tackling the issue too, I think.

Russian Revolution all over again!

Of course Corbyn knows that it will never happen, he was deliberately drawing attention to the fact that there is enormous, almost unbelievable amounts of wealth inequality in London. There is something very off about wealthy foreign owners of all these mansions parking their money (laundering their money in many cases) in these properties and leaving them vacant, pushing up housing prices across the city. Meanwhile the government has pursued austerity policies for the last 7 years that have punished those on the lower end of the economic scale. Corbyn's intent behind this statement was really to allude to this truth and to stoke public anger at the situation.

In my part of the world we have experienced a similar problem in that Vancouver real estate prices have reached such a high level that many people, particularly young people are forced to leave the city. This was partially caused by speculative real estate investing by Chinese investors who were looking for a safe overseas location to park their money (since the Chinese government has a habit of confiscating people's money if they suspected of any crime etc... so many wealthy Chinese choose to keep their money safe elsewhere). This created a real estate crisis in Vancouver and the local government finally created a 15% sales tax on foreign bought real estate and levied fines on homeowners who left their properties vacant, this actually helped slow down the increase in prices, although they're still sky high.

Unfortunately, since that law came in Chinese investors have now targeted my city - Seattle which is now the number one real estate market for Chinese investors and we have skyrocketing real estate prices. Unfortunately our city is not able to institute a similar tax and fine system, that would have to be done at state level.

I'm nowhere near as left wing as Corbyn but I do think there is something morally wrong with allowing foreign house buyers to purchase properties and leave them vacant in a city with such desperate shortage of housing that punishes the native population of the country. Why does our government allow this? Oh right, because the rich foreign investors fund the Tories...

Rainbunny The last time I looked anyone selling a house could sell to the highest bidder. Even when a CPO is possible the buyer has to pay the market price.

As for requisitioning - is that a power you would want to put in the hands of.any council of any political stripe?

Did you not read my post, requisitioning is not an option and of course I don't believe it should be. I think introducing a system similar to Vancouver's new legislation of imposing a sales tax on foreign bought homes and a fine for leaving properties vacant (instead of occupied either by the owner or tenants). It actually worked in Vancouver to a certain extent.

slightly off topic, but it's interesting to note that the 3rd amendment to the US constitution prohibits the state requisitioning property in peacetime.

There is definitely something to be said for bringing in measures to discourage the current state of property ownership in London.

It's so obvious even from a thread like this, let alone a proper deep analysis, that there are measures taken in many cities which assist the problem.

Correct, unfortunately a different "method" of requisitioning" property has been expanded by a 2005 Supreme Court ruling on "Eminent Domain" to allow local governments to seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development. In the case the Supreme Court ruled on homeowners had their properties seized to make way for an office development.

We have no idea whether any of these mansions / homes are suitable / safe to be let. My house wouldn't pass the rental legislation as I haven't up to date Gas certs etc.
Should another tragedy happen a gas leak etc once it's been requisitioned it would be "somebody must do something" etc etc.