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?

Flats/houses normally have them installed by the builders. Properties aren't fit for habitation without them. The council can act as landlord.

Increasinglymiddleaged. I agree that "buy to leave" is speculation. I have no problem with using the tax system as a disincentive. But my point refers to the wider capital markets. The UK is in a precarious position at the moment (Mark Carney said so this morning - basically, Brexit has made us poorer). Productivity is very low. We need to encourage investment (proper, capital investment, not speculation in housing, I agree) for growth. If there is any doubt that the UK is not a respecter of property rights, we will simply not be seen as an attractive place to invest.

Tax the buy to leavers? By all means. Invest those taxes in social housing? Fine. But ending up with a glut of top end London property priced to go quickly because people fear a new interventionist government approach? Not good for anyone here and the buy to leavers will be the first out and the least affected.

ah ok. I'd be amazed that they would be ready to move into immediately though.

It just seems a massively complicated plan fraught with problems

I would have though university or college or YMCA accommodation would be a more practical solution

The council can act as landlord

Sure it can. After it buys the property by agreement. Not otherwise.

"The council can act as landlord

Sure it can. After it buys the property by agreement. Not otherwise."

yes this is what I don't understand

(I am not being difficult I am just failing to understand the legal and practical ramifications)

whats the difference if I do the same but just don't live there?

Well - generally the answer is that it has an impact on the community. There's unrest in Cornwall because of second homes. You don't live there, so you don't buy from the local shops, frequent the local businesses, don't send your children to school there etc etc. If that happens a lot, then those services aren't well funded enough to exist, so it has a huge negative impact on the rest of the community. Not going to be the case in K&C, admittedly! But - it changes the nature of the surrounding community if there are large numbers of them, even so - and the fact that speculators are buying pushes up the price and makes it impossible for people who actually want to live there to do so.

It just seems like a hysterical response, I was surprised. Corbyn has seemed quite sensible up to this point.

Only the owner of a home can act as landlord of that home.

No, I understand how second homes can impact small communities - I live in the cotswolds!!

but in London I can't see that it makes a huge amount of difference. London property prices are extortionate anyway even in the poorest areas

Andrew it was discussed upthread that there are emergency powers the council can use (EDMO) - and, of course, there are compulsory purchase orders. All of these could be (expensively) challenged in law. My point isn't that it isn't legal, but that it it is reckless. It isn't a practical solution but the idea of an ideologue who wants to gain political capital by kicking the rich. My point is that would be much more sensibly done via taxation.

NataliaOsipova What do you expect anyone to do about Cornwall or similar areas? Owners will naturally sell to the highest bidder. Just like they do anywhere. You can't make people use their homes. Any attempt to control that would involve unacceptable intrusion.

in London I can't see that it makes a huge amount of difference.

Probably not, honestly. Not in the overall scheme of things.

It isn't a practical solution but the idea of an ideologue who wants to gain political capital by kicking the rich.

yes I agree, I don't see how it can be anything else

what happens if the homes are damaged? who pays?

is this just a way of bringing back squatting??

Andrew I agree with you. All you can (sensibly) do is use taxation as a disincentive (e.g. higher council tax for empty properties) and use those monies to mitigate the effects on the community. I've made this point squillions of times throughout this thread.

yes I agree re taxation

I wasn't sure if there was something I had missed about the idea of requisitioning

Does it come from the 'property is theft' idea?

Does it come from the 'property is theft' idea?

Honestly? No idea, although that would certainly appeal to the militant wing of the Labour Party. In fairness, on one level there is a huge juxtaposition between these people, dispossessed and having to flee for their lives, and the international super rich, some of whom own some of the most expensive property in the world and can afford to leave it empty. And this is all in the same borough of London. So, yes, I can understand why it raises questions of equality. That's a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. But it needs to be had in an economically literate way, not as a dangerously knee jerk response.

Can someone explain buy-to-leave to me. Everyone knows that rents in London are huge so why does a property-owner willingly forgo that income stream?

Yes agree natalia definitely a discussion to be had

There is actually another poignant (though I think at this point still not verified) layer to the story.

It has been said that at least some justification for wrapping this building in what may be flammable material was so that the rich would have better views/their property values would improve.

Now when we talk about this suggestion being a "kick at the rich" - if the above is shown to have played into the decision....then we are talking about something pretty damned immoral.

Yes I've read that. I don't totally buy it. I can see it would have been done to improve aesthetics but I imagine that was also to make it nicer for people who live in it. Or are we saying the residents wouldn't have cared about the appearance of their building?

Also the cladding has been used all over the country on schools and hospitals. Presumably not all to improve the views for wealthy residents?

Also the cladding has been used all over the country on schools and hospitals.

That is a frightening. Do these people get safe housing too now? How long will they have to wait?

I don't know. It's all being looked into apparently. Someone clearly won a massive contract to supply it.

senua I believe buy-to-leave is a thing because renting a property has all kinds of risks - the tenants can cause damage, they can not pay rent and need to be evicted, they cause wear and tear damage that needs fixing, this can all affect the resale price.

By leaving it empty, you are basically wrapping it in cling-film, it stays pristine and untouched and can be sold immediately whenever you want.

Can someone explain buy-to-leave to me. Everyone knows that rents in London are huge so why does a property-owner willingly forgo that income stream?

I think the bone of contention lies with owners who are so wealthy they can afford to leave it empty.

So in general it's white elephants that sit idle, rather than 'normal' flats.

The high-end London real estate market has been considered a safe and high-yield investment for some time now, even without rental yields - but that's changing.