London fire: Corbyn calls for empty flats to be requisitioned - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52366819]in countries with high levels of inequality, seizing property (especially land) and redistributing it improves the lot of the masses[/QUOTE] If this is the case then there must a a good example that you can give right? Because as far i see a government seizing property almost always ends up as a authoritarian shit hole. [QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52366826]Good idea. Let's impose further expenses on either the victims, who aren't exactly the richest people around, the government, who are undergoing quite a fucking shit fit and would be better not spending money where not needed. Alternatively, we could just let them bunk up in the unused property at the expense of the luxurious life of some landlord who probably is even paying all of their taxes, but even if they were someone of that stature should have some holding to the concept of "noblesse oblige". I mean what's the argument here? Oh no, we are making the extremely affluent life of a landlord slightly less affluent in order to help the deprived and suffering. What a tragedy. Make me care and sympathise for the landlord and maybe I'll give a rats arse.[/QUOTE] It was a council flat there for the hotel cost would fall on the council not the people who life there so that is a none issue, so for him to suggest to seize private property is nothing more then him spouting authoritarian socialisme which is retarded.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52366879]Then the owners will over charge the government and whinge about government spending. I agree they should be compensated but I suspect they won't be [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/18/swedish-private-housing-sector-refugees"]offering a[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-companies-have-been-exploiting-the-refugee-crisis-for-profit-a6706587.html"]fair deal.[/URL][/QUOTE] Unless you give the homeowners a shite deal, purely for being "leeches", you are still spending more to effectively boot out people paying a [URL="https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/council-tax/council-tax-empty-properties"]higher band of tax[/URL] whilst moving people who, lest they become "wealthy", have no hope of paying [URL="https://www.kfh.co.uk/west-london/kensington-and-chelsea-london-borough/council-tax"]those taxes[/URL]. The end result is still a net loss for the council and the residents and a shit deal for the homeowners. [QUOTE=Cone;52366885]well if these rich fellas don't want a bunch of people who need rehousing, perhaps they should invest in making sure everyone else's house is as safe as theirs. like by paying [B]marginally higher taxes[/B]. or by not voting for the party that's cut the fire brigade's funding to ribbons, for example. dreadful to think of, i know, but we all have to make sacrifices.[/QUOTE] Like this? [QUOTE] Empty property premium charge If your property has been left unoccupied and unfurnished for two years or more, you will be charged an additional 50 per cent of the full Council Tax charge. This means you will pay 150 per cent Council Tax. Example: Council Tax charge £1000 Empty property premium charge £ 500 Total amount payable £1500[/QUOTE]

So long as reasonable compensation is issued, sure.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52366879]Then the owners will over charge the government and whinge about government spending. I agree they should be compensated but I suspect they won't be [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/18/swedish-private-housing-sector-refugees"]offering a[/URL] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/how-companies-have-been-exploiting-the-refugee-crisis-for-profit-a6706587.html"]fair deal.[/URL][/QUOTE] Couldn't you just pay them the average market rate and say tough? I don't think we should make a habit out of doing it but when there's something like this we should take measures to make sure people don't go homeless. Regardless of if it was a block of poor people or rich people.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366908] It was a council flat there for the hotel cost would fall on the council not the people who life there so that is a none issue, so for him to suggest to seize private property is nothing more then him spouting authoritarian socialisme which is retarded.[/QUOTE] So we further impoverish a council that's having to make do with 70s housing, because someone called dibs on a piece of land they don't use? I still don't see why I should sympathise or care for he landlords.

[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52367010]So we further impoverish a council that's having to make do with 70s housing, because someone called dibs on a piece of land they don't use? I still don't see why I should sympathise or care for he landlords.[/QUOTE] You must be joking it is Kensington and Chelsea council, i don't think they are what you called strapped for cash. Also i don't ask for feelings of sympathy, i am simply amazed that the party leader of the second biggest party in the UK does not understand something as simple as property laws.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52367028]You must be joking it is Kensington and Chelsea council, i don't think they are what you called strapped for cash. Also i don't ask for feelings of sympathy, i am simply amazed that the party leader of the second biggest party in the UK does not understand something as simple as property laws.[/QUOTE] Is it possible that maybe he disagrees with the law as it is at current? Maybe because they are fuckig stupid and impede with providing basic necessities to those that need them in the name of protecting big money that isn't even flowing?

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366799] There plenty of hotels in surrounding area to temporarily until new housing could be found be the borough.[/QUOTE] how is putting hotels out of business going to be more effective than using unused property?

[QUOTE=EuSKalduna;52367037]Is it possible that maybe he disagrees with the law as it is at current? Maybe because they are fuckig stupid and impede with providing basic necessities to those that need them in the name of protecting big money that isn't even flowing?[/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of capital flight? Because that is what you are going to create with policies like that and it is not good for a economy. Why you may ask, because it makes people not wanting to invest anymore because the government can just seize what they own. This in turn creates further economic problems and make the lives for everyone worse. [QUOTE=AK'z;52367063]how is putting hotels out of business going to be more effective than using unused property?[/QUOTE] The council pays the hotels for the residents that are effect in order from them to stay there.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366673][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994"]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994[/URL] How is this man in power again?[/QUOTE] how is he not PM yet.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52367082]Have you ever heard of capital flight? Because that is what you are going to create with policies like that and it is not good for a economy. Why you may ask, because it makes people not wanting to invest anymore because the government can just seize what they own. This in turn creates further economic problems and make the lives for everyone worse. The council pays the hotels for the residents that are effect in order from them to stay there.[/QUOTE] On the hotel thing; like hell they're going to pay profitable asking price, that'd be enormously expensive, but the alternative is forcing the hotel to accept a lesser price for less profitable customers, which could put them out of business. Capital flight is fucking meaningless when the capital is sitting there, doing nothing, producing nothing, and facilitating nothing. What a fucking tragedy that Moneybags doesn't get to squat on land because of arbitrary laws that protect outdated "rights". What a fucking tragedy that landlords no longer get to just take and hold land for the good of nobody, not even themselves sometimes, solely because they can. What a fucking tragedy that landlords have some responsibility and aren't living in a bubble isolated from the filthy peasant. What a fucking tragedy indeed. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] But hey, you want to talk about seizing private property being unprofitable? Tell that to the labour party circa 1945 when they nationalised virtually all of the country, provided the people with a truly universal healthcare service, improved education, rebuilt infrastructure, all the while running surpluses. Tell that to the communities of people that'd been brought to a higher standards of living after a devastating war of which we drew the brunt of for some 4-5 years. Tell that to the welfare state that managed to be strong and stable for nearly 30 years until sudden developments of the world at large forced them to consider adaptations they couldn't implement in time, and forced a decade of disgusting neo-liberalism that plowed this country and its people in the arse for a little short term coin.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744] Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. [/QUOTE] you realise that nearly every modern western nation has some equivalent of requisition

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] What is Eminent Domain for 500, Alex?

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] You are aware that stuff like this happens, without such noble intentions driving it, all the time already right? Compulsory purchasing in the name of fracking, housing development etc, goes on all the time and that's far worse than just having to put someone up for a bit after a disaster. There was a riding stable my girlfriend and I used to save up to visit just outside my town, they were given an insultingly small amount of money for their land and told to take their horses and get stuffed. And this happened under the current conservative government, not some communist boogeyman regime.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52367198]What is Eminent Domain for 500, Alex?[/QUOTE] That doesn't really apply here. Eminent Domain is the right of the government to acquire private property through the process of condemnation, which is carried out through the courts. This process [B]does[/B] require fair market financial compensation to the owners of affected properties, and gives property owners the right to combat their property being seized in court. Furthermore, this process can also only be used for matters pertaining to the long-term public good, such as infrastructure construction. The temporary emergency re-homing of displaced people does not qualify as just cause for eminent domain. Of course "fair market financial compensation" is apparently a pretty loose concept where the government is involved, and thus it's not hard to find horror stories about people getting a fraction of the actual value of their property. Hence why I would have some pretty steep reservations about the government forcing me to home people without any of the usual vetting processes or protections in place, even if they [I]did[/I] offer to compensate me for rent and repairs.

[media] https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/875746994379255808 [/media] Hahahaha look at that out of touch idiot! Supporting what the majority of the country thinks!

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52367336][media] [url]https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/875746994379255808[/url] [/media] Hahahaha look at that out of touch idiot! Supporting what the majority of the country thinks![/QUOTE] Well, what are we defining as "empty?" Something that merely has a current vacancy, something that is actively maintained but hasn't been leased or lived in for a certain number of years, something that is only lived in part time (such as vacation homes), or something that is fully unoccupied and unmaintained by the current owners? Depending on the circumstances, I could probably be persuaded to support utilizing empty properties, but it is going to hinge pretty heavily on the nature of the property and the way that it was being used, and would [I]have[/I] to be paired with financial compensation for lost revenue and repairs, and legal exemption of liability for the actions or well being of the occupants (meaning that if I were forced to accept "tenants" into my property, I could not be sued if they injured themselves in some way or found the living conditions inadequate). I would probably vote that I "somewhat support" this move, too, though not without some serious reservations as to its implementation. That conditional support does not mean that I think we should just start seizing properties, however, and it does not mean that I don't find Corbyn's calls to be concerning.

[QUOTE=ElectronicG19;52366785]okay! let's start seizing private property that people have fucking paid for with their own money! what a great idea im a labour voter and this idea is retarded[/QUOTE] "Their own money" is pretty subjective considering the majority of them make their money through pretty shady practices and general oligarchy.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;52367367]"Their own money" is pretty subjective considering the majority of them make their money through pretty shady practices and general oligarchy.[/QUOTE] Based on fuckin' what? The majority of real estate investors are middle-income retirees, just looking to supplement their retirement benefits so that they can live in relative comfort and security. Your corporate fatcat multimillionaire investor living on a private island represents a minority in the world of residential real estate investing. Policies that fuck over real estate investors hit your [I]Mom & Pop Investment Shops[/I] a hell of a lot harder than [I]Billionaire Landlords Inc,[/I] because Average Grandpa Landlord, with his one or two multi-family investment properties, cannot absorb the costs of having the government force him to forego bringing in paying tenants in favor of those needing shelter. I fully agree that the poor and the displaced require comfort and shelter as much as anybody else, but you should not shatter the thin financial security that low-level investors have. Their profit margins, and thus financial well being, are often thin to begin with. Don't make [I]more[/I] victims out of a bad situation.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52366834]A large majority of real estate investors are middle income families and retirees -- people who have put everything they had into investing in one or two properties to supplement their income and/or finance their retirement. Having their investments seized without compensation could ruin them. Where are you people getting the idea that landlords are all multimillionaires living in luxury on private islands, scoffing at the woes of the poor?[/QUOTE] In the US, yes, but in the UK no. Property costs in the UK, [I]especially[/I] in London are pretty extreme. If we were talking some houses in a small village somewhere then yeah, we'd be talking middle class eligible but we're talking flats in London, you're not getting those rent-free unless you're upper class. The UK actually has a really huge issue with rich people buying properties to sit on and they stay empty for the majority of the year if not the whole year. The US is a massive buyer's market compared to the UK when it comes to real estate.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52367323]That doesn't really apply here. Eminent Domain is the right of the government to acquire private property through the process of condemnation, which is carried out through the courts. This process [B]does[/B] require fair market financial compensation to the owners of affected properties, and gives property owners the right to combat their property being seized in court. Furthermore, this process can also only be used for matters pertaining to the long-term public good, such as infrastructure construction. The temporary emergency re-homing of displaced people does not qualify as just cause for eminent domain. Of course "fair market financial compensation" is apparently a pretty loose concept where the government is involved, and thus it's not hard to find horror stories about people getting a fraction of the actual value of their property. Hence why I would have some pretty steep reservations about the government forcing me to home people without any of the usual vetting processes or protections in place, even if they [I]did[/I] offer to compensate me for rent and repairs.[/QUOTE] Of course its to be expected to compensate the land/estate owner fair market value of said land/estate that's not in question here (9/10 Eminent Domain & Eminent Domain equivalents have that in writing). And if I'm reading the Compulsary Purchase laws correctly (Correct me if I'm wrong), [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Compensation_Act_1961"]the fair market value is typically negotiated through a third party/non-governmental appraiser[/URL]. And if no agreement is met then its taken to a governmental body to declare the price. Furthermore once the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_purchase_in_England_and_Wales#Procedure"]Compulsary Purchase process has begun there's typically some sort of audit done on the estate owner (Tax audit if I'm reading this correctly)[/URL]. So I can understand said reservations about ED, there's a good chance one might get a shit deal. On the issue of condemnation, what's the qualifiers for that? Does the building have to be near-demo level of neglect to qualify for that or what? The biggest disconnect here is legal vs ethical validity. Hypothetically speaking, if said estate owner was using these empty apts as a pure investment without actually renting them out whilst people out on the street could never afford them due to price inflation who'd be in the wrong? Whose rights come first? (See [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_purchase_in_England_and_Wales#Human_rights"]list of precedents[/URL]) Hell looking at [URL="https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/04/23/chinas-largest-ghost-city-is-now-90-full-but-theres-a-twist/#5ac4b34567c8"]China's ghost cities problem[/URL] or Vancouver's Housing Bubble you see a near mirror image of the conundrum we are all discussing. Of course their properties laws are vastly different to the US/UKs so the parallels are only so much. Again you're probably well more versed in the law like this so correct me if I'm wrong.

If the people willing to support the seizure of property are also willing to offer their spare room or sofa for a few nights to help out then all those in need of accomodation would have somewhere to sleep.

[QUOTE=GoingPostal13;52367611]If the people willing to support the seizure of property are also willing to offer their spare room or sofa for a few nights to help out then all those in need of accomodation would have somewhere to sleep.[/QUOTE] Oh don't blame them, they are just following the Labour strategy of politicising events whilst kids are still missing and bodies might still be smouldering. [media]https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/875758693693960193[/media] Yes, neo-liberalism made the council approve a deathtrap, in response to this shocking development we are proposing giving more property to the council as surely they are the best ones to manage it.

I'm not really one for stealing people's houses off them just because they don't use it, but I do think they need to be taken away from people that don't do anything with them; but again - not by force/theft. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=benwaddi;52367650]Yes, neo-liberalism made the council approve a deathtrap, in response to this shocking development we are proposing giving more property to the council as surely they are the best ones to manage it.[/QUOTE] ????? "The free market made it a death trap, therefore it's the council's fault" How did you make that leap?

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;52367653]I'm not really one for stealing people's houses off them just because they don't use it, but I do think they need to be taken away from people that don't do anything with them; but again - not by force/theft. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] ????? "The free market made it a death trap, therefore it's the council's fault" How did you make that leap?[/QUOTE] There's probably a nice middle ground where you offer tax credits and shit to anyone who lets their empty property be used for situations such as this.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;52367653] ????? "The free market made it a death trap, therefore it's the council's fault" How did you make that leap?[/QUOTE] I was being sarcastic, Mr. Lewis is pushing a conspiracy theory that the council let this happen whilst his party leader is proposing handing more property to the council. Nobody, as far as I know, forced the council to approve the renovations.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;52366744]Because the government seizing your property without compensating you is such a great idea and is totally not authoritarian at all. Further more it will certainly not make people think twice about investing into property in the UK at all, knowing that the government can just seize it. No i don't see any downside at all tovarish.[/QUOTE] yeah i mean people burned out of house and home should just be left to die in the gutter for being so stupid as to let themselves get burned out of house and home right? think before you speak.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52367798]yeah i mean people burned out of house and home should just be left to die in the gutter for being so stupid as to let themselves get burned out of house and home right? think before you speak.[/QUOTE] The only solutions are seizing homes or letting people die in the gutter, nothing in between?

[QUOTE=benwaddi;52367695]I was being sarcastic, Mr. Lewis is pushing a conspiracy theory that the council let this happen whilst his party leader is proposing handing more property to the council. Nobody, as far as I know, forced the council to approve the renovations.[/QUOTE] ...I'm not seeing him pushing any conspiracy theory. But nice attempt to delegitimise his tweet by making it sound absurd. He, and many others, are complaining about the fact that the renovations used a material clearly unsuitable for the job (kinda important that it doesn't help spread fires y'know) in an attempt to save money, and avoided all the criticisms raised about this by groups that had identified the potential for disaster. In the name of maximising profits and growth for minimal costs, corners were cut and disaster struck with very little done to mitigate the damage that could be done beforehand. It's a rightful complaint. Sacrificing the safety of citizens in the name of profit because you fucking well know they're too poor to actually do anything to stop you isn't on.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52367928]...I'm not seeing him [B]pushing any conspiracy theory[/B]. But nice attempt to delegitimise his tweet by making it sound absurd. He, and many others, are complaining about the fact that the renovations used a material clearly unsuitable for the job (kinda important that it doesn't help spread fires y'know) in an attempt to save money, and avoided all the criticisms raised about this by groups that had identified the potential for disaster. [B]In the name of maximising profits and growth for minimal costs, corners were cut[/B] and disaster struck with very little done to mitigate the damage that could be done beforehand. It's a rightful complaint. Sacrificing the safety of citizens in the name of profit because you fucking well know they're too poor to actually do anything to stop you isn't on.[/QUOTE] The investigation is concluded? And what else can you take from saying not to burn people? It certainly makes it sound like a deliberate act. I mean, you are saying there was a conspiracy but denying it is one. Make up your mind.