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?

It's a slippery slope.

Once you start requisitioning property where do you stop?

You don't for a time period, then just a very reduced amount, if at all.

Actually, you do. I'm a landlord and we have to pay council tax if the property is untenanted (i.e. when we're between tenants)

oh ffs it's not a revolution - he is suggesting the state buy back empty properties owned and un occupied by investors - not frog marching Binky out of her flat!

There will be a need for new social housing

However Mr Corbyn said;

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/15/jeremy-corbyn-empty-homes-owned-rich-should-requisitioned-grenfell/

“Kensington is a tale of two cities. The south part of Kensington is incredibly wealthy, it’s the wealthiest part of the whole country."

“The ward where this fire took place is, I think, the poorest ward in the whole country and properties must be found - requisitioned if necessary - to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally."

“It can’t be acceptable that in London we have luxury buildings and luxury flats left empty as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live. We have to address these issues.”

Also quoted in the Guardian;

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/mps-demand-help-for-terrified-high-rise-residents-after-london-fire

They might not have asked for that though. They might have been completely unaware. I'm just talking about individuals like you and me who happen to have money and property.

I dunno. I just don't see the merit in punishing rich people. I don't think that'll improve community relations for a start.

Councils throughout England and Wales already have the power to "requisition" private property by compulsory purchase, including if it is empty and they want to bring the property back into current use. See for example S17 of the Housing Act 1985, S225 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Housing Act 2004.

If any "requisition" is done in accordance with the existing legislation, ie. an order approved by the appropriate Secretary of State and statutory compensation paid I don't have any problem with it whatsoever.

he is suggesting the state buy back empty properties owned and un occupied by investors

Why is it calling it requisitioning then?

Birds it was in the Guardian this morning that Kensington charges an extra 50% on top of normal council tax as well if the house is long term empty.

Does anyone think it really likely he's suggesting 'taking' people's empty homes for good and ending property ownership?

Or is it more likely he's suggesting requiring empty homes, which meet certain criteria, to be used for a limited amount of time with the owners those being compensated.

All this fucking scaremongering.

Private landlords can already use the council to rent out their properties, the council pay them market rates, and then make good at the end of the tenancy. I should imagine it would be a kind of extension of this kind of scheme.

I think the government can do this under emergency powers. And if this isn't a national emergencyI don't know'what is. It's a pretty obvious temprary solution to a massive fucking problem.

or even just rent them out at a fair rent?

It will cost thousands to house all those people in B+B's and hotels - this is a better solution surely?

A definition of requisition: demand the use or supply of (something) by official order.

We paid reduced CT on FIL's property (NW London) for 6 months then it went back to 100%. It certainly used to be reduced for a long time, but that seems to have changed at least in some areas.

The key to understanding Marxism is to remember that no one except the State is allowed to amass wealth.
People crying out to tax the rich, to steal their property need to understand that they, are in fact seen as rich also.
See the failed USSR for a failed reason.

All this fucking scaremongering.

Scaremongering only happens in an information vacuum.

JC could have said "buying back" or "temporarily using" but he chose the word requisitioning which is very ideologically loaded.

'The cladding was to improve the view for rich people living in another block' Which block was that-the one next door that is also council owned?
I think there are lots of questions to be asked here and someone needs to give some answers and yes probably be severely punished for negligence-and on top the safety of other blocks needs to be looked at and housing strategies revised- but stating that this tragedy occurred solely due to the appearance of the original block offending the eyes of rich people is a step too far.

Maybe the cladding was added to improve the appearance of the building for the people that live in it and call it home, as much as for those that live next to it? In the same way most people like their house to look nice from the outside I would think that was the thought here (however horrendously it was executed). I don't like the inference that 'poor people' don't care about the appearance of their own homes.

It is not the fault of the "rich people" that this happened

But it is the 'fault' of rich, often foreign, property owners buying homes to use a few days a year, if at all, that London property is so expensive.

This is something that happens in other areas and not just to the rich. When my ex-H bought his house and was dragging his feet over making it habitable and moving out of his mums, the council wrote to him telling him they would force sale or possession of if it remained empty.

Quite sensible I think. What's the use in having empty properties whilst entire families are living in one room in a B and B?

Well 2nd homes that lie empty should be taxed to the hilt.
If you want to park money then you need to pay for it.

In London you now generally pay council tax on properties that are vacant to discourage people keeping empty properties as 'investments' - in fact some boroughs charge more for empty properties.

IDGAF, Corbyn is absolutely right. Kensington and Chelsea has the highest amount of empty houses and flats anywhere in the country. I see no issue in requisitioning a mansion owned by a Russian oligarch who has no intention of ever living in the house and is only using it to safely invest his money somewhere.

It's disgraceful that people have been made homeless by a fire and people are carping on about how unfair it is to borrow an empty mansion for a few weeks.

They don't want to take over the bedroom of Sylvia at No. 94!

"It's a slippery slope" - yes, one where it's better for everyone at the bottom.

Either requisition them or heavily tax people if their houses are empty over a certain amount of time.

However awful the tragedy is and that it is vital people are rehoused in their local area, you cannot "requisition" other people's homes. You can ask but that is all.

What's the use in having empty properties whilst entire families are living in one room in a B and B?

No good use as such currently. But it comes with investment in the economy and once you start requisitioning property the trust in the government goes.

To use a tragedy to point score on the wealthy versus the poor is appalling. People died. And he's using their deaths for political leverage and making a suggestion he knows is illegal,its not even an option, and helps none of these families. It doesn't get much worse in my opinion. It's beyond appalling. He should have some respect.

I think the thing about the cladding being there because of how the building looked for the benefit of the rich people in the area has actually come from the residents' testimonies. I've seen numerous interviews with residents saying it. So, it's important not to dismiss or belittle that suggestion because even if it wasn't the real reason that is how the residents were made to feel - probably because they felt invisible, neglected and voiceless in so many other ways.

I agree this doesn't have to be Party political but is is inherently political.