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?

...there absolutely are rows of empty homes. You only need to read the various surveys saying so.

Sadly, families are already being told they'll have to move as far away as Preston.

That's a disgrace. Mark my words - Grenfell tower will be razed and luxury apartments will be built there instead.

Please send addresses of empty rows of houses. Because no one else can find them.

Please send addresses of empty rows of houses. Because no one else can find them.

According to this there are 1399 empty homes in Kensington and chelsea

whoownsengland.org/2017/06/18/where-are-the-empty-homes-in-kensington/

Mark my words - Grenfell tower will be razed and luxury apartments will be built there instead.

Sadly Babycham I believe you are right.

Where are they ? Friends been out looking but only found 3. And they are fit for rats. I am genuinely asking as people are out walking the streets trying to find these places .

Where are they ?

If you read the article many are "buy to leave" properties i.e. bought by investors who have no intention of living in them - so will include luxury properties.

So I sent friends that map. They are off to investigate.

mumsneedwine - I doubt such properties will appear obviously empty - they are probably full furnished and some will even be staffed. If you are genuine, I think you are underestimating the wealth of the people who buy this sort of property.

According to this there are 1399 empty homes in Kensington and chelsea

it's maddening, isn't it? but my anger at this issue didn't start five days ago. This has been a problem for 15 years.

The people out looking are pretty posh themselves. They are genuinely trying to find empty properties and want to then find the owners to see if can use them. So far not a lot of luck. They are literally knocking on doors and if no one answers they will check it out. So far only 3 doors not answered. They are trying to find these 1399 properties but they seem to have people on them so far. Some of those dots appear to be in offices. They will keep trying.

I know families who own 'buy to leave' properties in Kensington, because I teach in a posh school in the ME, with many 'super rich' families who are looking to park their money somewhere stable (more so than their country of origin - there have been Interesting Times here in recent years). The political families in particular have always got one eye on the emergency exit signs...

Are they using that property, right now? Generally not. They visit London & stay in ritzy hotels, or visit family who are actually settled here. As university age dc set off for London they are bought practical flats, not installed in the family's huge decaying Miss Havisham style mansion.

Would they take kindly to their property being requisitioned, even temporarily? Fuck, no. They're from a country with huge inequality & are generally much bemused by any notion of social empathy. They bung their servants bonuses & do charity events - they aren't awful people - but any idea that it's unfair that some are living in mansions, some are living in holes is pretty alien.

How would they react to their empty London houses being requisitioned for the Grenfell victims? Well, it wouldn't hurt them, if it was temporary, compensated & they were cleaned up & refurbished as necessary afterwards, but they certainly wouldn't be happy.

The question is: is the UK wanting to be held to ransom by these guys? Is it worth the candle of making use of this property, through existing legal channels, & then facing repercussions in terms of their subsequently investing elsewhere?

I'd argue London eventually would be cheaper, healthier & generally better off without these zombie mansions being used to park large sums long term for private & non UK gain, but whether it's worth the interim legal & political shit storm I just don't know.

But I don't think it's an idea to dismiss out of hand.

Oh & these houses are quite often not technically empty, completely. There'll be a member of staff pottering about somewhere in many cases, living in a staff flat amidst another 15 bedrooms.

I'm not convinced it's practical to use these properties. Scrutinise how this situation came about & change things for the future, absolutely.

The Quaker quote is great, but I do think the problem lies with banks. Maybe if the laws on banks were to change, to allow people to walk away from negative equity, as they can in the US, some of people's problems with a drop in house prices would be alleviated. Because in the end, a drop in the value of my house only matters when I want to sell it and, even then, if the next house I want to buy also has a lower price, the loss is minimal.

Where are they ? Friends been out looking but only found 3. And they are fit for rats. I am genuinely asking as people are out walking the streets trying to find these places .

Near the railway line going into Marylebone for one. A couple of whole blocks that have been built for ages with no one in them. Of course I don't know the details of their ownership and perhaps occupation has just been delayed but it is odd.

But undoubtedly it is a tiny proportion of housing stock

If I were sitting on a load of empty flats I'd be fucking offering them to the government on loan. We're all in it together, right?

If I were sitting on a load of empty flats I'd be fucking offering them to the government on loan. We're all in it together, right?

Absolutely.

Sadly, I don't think that is quite the way they think. They are probably beginning to complain about the burned-out eyesore....or as mentioned above, making calls to see about snatching the property and building luxury flats.

Maybe if the laws on banks were to change, to allow people to walk away from negative equity, as they can in the US, some of people's problems with a drop in house prices would be alleviated.

Or to put it another way: if people could transfer their debts to the depositors whose money they borrowed. I think not.

to the depositors whose money they borrowed

That ain't the way banking works anymore. There's nothing in those vaults.

I think this is where Jeremy's idealism will meet practicalities of the law as it is now and we can see the big chasm.

You can't sieze other people's property it's illegal but I completely agree and totally see the post by crowie

Maybe now is time for a rethink but I can't see it happening.

You can't sieze other people's property it's illegal

Have you read the thread at all? this point has been addressed and debunked numerous times.

To be precise you can't seize other people's property in a way which is (a) quick (b) consistent with the Human Rights Act which Corbyn clams to support and (c) not destructive of all confidence in the rule of law.

spin it has not.

None of the myriad suggestions as to what Corbyn meant by 'requisition' could apply to the current situation in any practicable way.

tiggytape -Perhaps they need to review council taxes and increase them for houses that have gone up a lot in value or introduce a Land Value Tax which would get rid of a lot of other taxes and would mean people have less option to speculate on land prices.

I do think it is unfair that someone renting, paying huge amounts in rent will have to pay a lot of PAYE tax, yet someone whose house is worth millions because it has gone up in value since they bought it can extract that unearned profit when they sell without having to pay any extra tax. It just makes people hoard houses and means that nobody invests in the real economy because they are all buying houses to make an easy profit and people who don't own have no money to spend in the wider economy because they are paying all their income for rent or high mortgages, so the economy suffers. It's really a dysfunctional way or running an economy.

You can't sieze other people's property it's illegal

Have you read the thread at all? this point has been addressed and debunked numerous times.

We know that homes can be and are seized for airports, motorways and the like.

This isn't like that, and even if it were, it would take donkeys years which Corbyn knows, so it's not even remotely a good solution but rather a dog whistle out to his left wing revolutionaries.

I see that yesterday he was encouraging people to find empty houses and occupy them.

I don't understand why all the Corbyn supporters on this thread can't see that this cannot be a quick and lawful solution. If you want to seize houses quickly, it's theft; if you want to seize them within the rule of law you can't because the state's threshold for taking them would not be met as it would be in cases of motorways, airports, wartime powers, etc; and even if you could, it would take years.

People who own houses in Zone 1 that they can afford to leave empty have lawyers, and they also have the right to a hearing and appeals.

Which part of that do you disagree with?