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

Can someone explain why temporarily setting up those affected in area hotels was a bad idea again? I understand it was because of non-permanence... but isn't that the point? A temporary solution to house these people until more permanent accommodations are found? Regardless though, I'm sure we can all agree that no one affected by this should be left without shelter or security, regardless their circumstance.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52367514]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.[/QUOTE] Just to clarify, Eminent Domain is the right of the government to acquire properties for projects relating to the greater public good, and Condemnation is the process by which that right is actually exercised. Though the common understanding of "condemnation" pairs it with derelict buildings, or buildings in advanced states of disrepair, we could just as easily be talking about a brand new and fully occupied building in perfect condition. As to the specifics of housing markets in London, Vancouver, or other cities where heavy foreign investment may be posing a more advanced problem, I do have to admit some ignorance on the subject. I am pretty well versed in domestic real estate investment, but that's a whole 'nother ballpark. I'm not familiar with the concept of somehow profiting from an empty building -- that makes very little sense to me on the surface.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;52367935]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.[/QUOTE] I honestly have no idea how you get the idea that "corners were cut" means "they did it in purpose because fuck poors lmaooooo". Businesses aim to save money all the time, this is how they work. If a company can see some justification for not spending extra money ("oh this cladding is cheaper...and the building probably wont catch fire") they're probably gonna take that option. A conspiracy implies they planned to use the cheapest materials knowing full well that if the worst were to happen the only thing lost would be some poor people. That likely isn't the case and it was just a lack of forethought and a insistence on getting the cheapest thing possible within reason. Companies have cut corners historically all the time thinking "ehhhh what's the worst that can happen". That's likely the case here too. Conspiracies imply malice. I doubt this was malicious.

After 4 years of studying Economics seeing the following subjects: -Industrial organization -International trade -Game theory , If I ever read the following lines: "We trust the market to...." I'll have a fucking brain meltdown.

[I]*wrong thread*[/I]

I feel like a lot of people think he's on about permanently giving these flats to the people. He literally just wants the empty houses to be given to the people who lost their homes until they get back on their feet. He's not saying "hey u rich cunt, u bought a big house? well this poor lad is getting it forever now", he's going "hey u rich cunt, we want to borrow ur big ass empty house for a bit while these poor lads get on their feet", which is fair enough. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] [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] There were many tweets after it of people offering places for those affected to stay in, local mosques also opened their doors for the victims. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=benwaddi;52367650]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. [/QUOTE] Well I mean, the council DID approve of this death-trap, they should be held accountable. Labour aren't saying "ew blame the tories 100000%", they're saying that they need to get to the bottom of how this was allowed to happen. It IS a political issue, from the cuts to firefighters who admit that the cuts have affected them, to the permission given to do up the building in the unsafe way. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] [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. [/QUOTE] These people don't even live in the houses he's suggesting using for most of the time or even ever. They aren't contributing anything to the economy except driving house prices up in London by snapping up properties and then not using them. In turn, blocks are built that are tailored for these people, reducing the amount of affordable housing available for people.

God forbid over priced property that is wildly under used is actually put to use in some manner

How can anyone even support this idea? Seizing [I]private property[/I]?

[QUOTE=Knurr;52368092]How can anyone even support this idea? Seizing [I]private property[/I]?[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/pl.png[/IMG] Don't worry mate. The reds aren't coming back. This has nothing to do with "SEIZING" property. If anything at all, private property is defined and sustained by a society because it's one of the most productive and efficient ways we have to assign resources. There is nothing in nature that says "Private property is sacred".

[QUOTE=Knurr;52368092]How can anyone even support this idea? Seizing [I]private property[/I]?[/QUOTE] Because a shittonne of people just lost their homes, and London has a shittonne of empty homes

[QUOTE=Knurr;52368092]How can anyone even support this idea? Seizing [I]private property[/I]?[/QUOTE] If I owned all the houses in a given area, but kept them vacant, that's fine then because whatever I want overrides whatever people literally need?

if you have the disposable income to be able to render several buildings (that essentially amounts to the key to survival in modern society) unusable by anyone else for longer than 12 months when there is a limited amount of available space in this country that gets smaller and smaller every day you're basically just being a cunt for the sake of profit which is why the world's as fucked as it is today, too many cunts letting people rot and die because it's profitable. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] we don't have any laws to keep the common people protected in times like this which isn't fair at all.

It's just Corbyn using the fire to push his political views and try to drum up support. The whole thing is stupid and its crazy people are defending it here.

[QUOTE=Jonzky;52368486]It's just Corbyn using the fire to push his political views and try to drum up support. The whole thing is stupid and its crazy people are defending it here.[/QUOTE] The synthetic outrage over "politicising!" the fire is getting pretty tiresome tbh. Everything ive seen floating around on the internet- notably clips and interviews from the surviving residents themselves, suggests that they feel they have had their concerns completely ignored and their safety neglected for years prior to the tragedy. Many of them are incredibly angry about it- And rightly so imo. So it's pretty rich to act like sweeping the whole thing under a rug and not asking any difficult questions about why nothing was done to prevent such a disaster from happening, and how to ensure those effected are cared for, would be the respectful thing to do.

People shouldn't be homeless in mass because of a tragedy that they had no part in creating. If there's empty property I don't see the problem with them being able to use it on a temporary basis if there's no other accommodation available in the area.

[QUOTE=ironman17;52366720]The ones left vacant but technically the property of some fat cat in Saudi Arabia. You know what? I feel like housing law should have a "use it or lose it" clause added, to smack down the notion of buying empty houses and using them as bargaining chips.[/QUOTE] What about millionaires who have like, a few homes they don't always live in but keep in case they feel like spending the summer in the countryside.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52368556]The synthetic outrage over "politicising!" the fire is getting pretty tiresome tbh. Everything ive seen floating around on the internet- notably clips and interviews from the surviving residents themselves, suggests that they feel they have had their concerns completely ignored and their safety neglected for years prior to the tragedy. Many of them are incredibly angry about it- And rightly so imo. So it's pretty rich to act like sweeping the whole thing under a rug and not asking any questions about why nothing was done to prevent such a disaster from happening, and how to ensure those effected are cared for, would be the respectful thing to do.[/QUOTE] People were claiming May was heroic and brave for suggesting we tear up human rights hours after the London Bridge attacks, this is Corbyn making a suggestion which a majority of the country agrees with and isn't pushing it on behalf of Labour or as one of their policies. Ridiculous.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52368594]What about millionaires who have like, a few homes they don't always live in but keep in case they feel like spending the summer in the countryside.[/QUOTE] What about displaced people from an apartment block horribly mismanaged and overlooked by a pro-austerity government which resulted in the deaths of 30+ people and hundreds made homeless? Oh but Oswald wants to vacation in London this summer!

[QUOTE=benwaddi;52367650]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.[/QUOTE] I'd love to be ignorant enough to believe that everything happens in a happy little bubble free from politics. Unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world, where decisions made by the government have very real consequences for many people. And surprise, the people who died in this incident are included. What is "politicising" about rightfully criticising the circumstances that led to this fire? You might think it's disrespectful to talk about political action in the face of death (in which case WHEN is it appropriate in your opinion?) but I think it's fucking pathetic to throw your arms up in the air and allow these kinds of thing to affect even more people in the future. When another tower block burns down because nothing was done, because we don't want to "politicise" a major issue in our society, what will your excuse be then? Hundreds of people died to save a [B]private contractor[/B] a few thousand pounds. They've placed a price on human life and it's surprisingly, depressingly low. I'm happy that labour are confronting this issue head on, instead of fucking running and hiding like May is doing right now. Because it should never happen again, why are the people [I]showing concern about this in the wrong?[/I]

[QUOTE=Streecer;52368619]I'd love to be ignorant enough to believe that everything happens in a happy little bubble free from politics. Unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world, where decisions made by the government have very real consequences for many people. And surprise, the people who died in this incident are included. [/QUOTE] So we should use a solution to the issue of the victims being homeless that just increases tensions and, as far as I can see, has little benefit above housing people in council owned properties in neighbouring boroughs? By all means propose solution that are actually workable but dont do the dog and pony show of proposing moronic (but demagogic) polices whist being in a position where you can afford to get peoples hopes up needlessly because the fallout lands upon the other parties. [QUOTE]What is "politicising" about rightfully criticising the circumstances that led to this fire? You might think it's disrespectful to talk about political action in the face of death (in which case WHEN is it appropriate in your opinion?) but I think it's fucking pathetic to throw your arms up in the air and allow these kinds of thing to affect even more people in the future.[/QUOTE] You can discuss this, have I gone after anyone talking about the poor housing safety standards or the woefully inept job the council seem to have done with the building? I was complaining about people using this to push the "Corbyn/Labour is the saviour" bullshit, look at Clive Lewis's tweet I posted where he [I]apparently[/I] is talking about cutting corners then a few tweets later he goes off about Pinochet. [QUOTE]When another tower block burns down because nothing was done, because we don't want to "politicise" a major issue in our society, what will your excuse be then? Hundreds of people died to save a [B]private contractor[/B] a few thousand pounds. They've placed a price on human life and it's surprisingly, depressingly low. I'm happy that labour are confronting this issue head on, instead of fucking running and hiding like May is doing right now. Because it should never happen again, why are the people [I]showing concern about this in the wrong?[/I][/QUOTE] Please point out where I said nothing should be done to stop these fires occurring in the future? Here is the problem you have, you are treating the most ridiculous reaction to the event as the standard and anything less than a radical and immediate solution (consequences be damned!) is "not enough". Now defend this: [media]https://twitter.com/willuminare/status/875759973669711872[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/labourlewis/status/875760681315913728[/media]

Why do you think anyone has to defend tweets from randy random? Why do you even bother with that kinda horseshit argumentation? "You guys must surely wanna defend these out of context tweets, fall for my bait you lefties"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52368952]Why do you think anyone has to defend tweets from randy random? Why do you even bother with that kinda horseshit argumentation? "You guys must surely wanna defend these out of context tweets, fall for my bait you lefties"[/QUOTE] Yeah, you wanna click on the tweets (which is why I posted the "I Fucking Love it" one and posted the one that was in reply to on the other page), that is a Labour politician seeming pretty happy that a bunch of people dying can be used to push his ideology. But no a Labour politician is a "randy random" and totally not relevant to my point that Labour politicians and supporters are using this to push an agenda.

[url]https://twitter.com/willuminare[/url] This guy is not a labour rep. The second tweet is up for interpretation but you've clearly declared what it is beyond conversation or discussion.

[QUOTE=Rolond Returns;52368309]if you have the disposable income to be able to render several buildings (that essentially amounts to the key to survival in modern society) unusable by anyone else for longer than 12 months when there is a limited amount of available space in this country that gets smaller and smaller every day you're basically just being a cunt for the sake of profit which is why the world's as fucked as it is today, too many cunts letting people rot and die because it's profitable. [editline]16th June 2017[/editline] we don't have any laws to keep the common people protected in times like this which isn't fair at all.[/QUOTE] I'm not understanding how keeping buildings vacant translates into profit. Could somebody explain the concept behind this to me? Buildings are an ongoing expense. Vacant or no you still have continual operating costs associated with property ownership. With continual expenses and zero revenue, how is a profit made?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52369109]I'm not understanding how keeping buildings vacant translates into profit. Could somebody explain the concept behind this to me? Buildings are an ongoing expense. Vacant or no you still have continual operating costs associated with property ownership. With continual expenses and zero revenue, how is a profit made?[/QUOTE] We have it an Australia, too. I'm not a housing expert, but my understanding is that its essentially a way of diversifying your assets on paper and reducing the amount of cash you have on hand which can be beneficial enough to offset the maintenance on the house? Plus, without anyone living there you would slash at least a little bit off maintenance. EDIT: Also, many of the vacant houses being referred to are in the same suburb - Kensington. Rising house prices in Kensington means that buying a cheap vacant house a couple years ago and then selling it a little later could turn over a very tidy profit - probably more than the interest you would make in a bank? My understanding is that Australia, the UK and Canada all suffer from a problem with investors buying up houses and keeping them as vacant assets. Personally I'm half in Corbyn's camp in this one - I agree that property is sacred but I think it's time for a rethink when it comes to housing - we don't live in a world where having vacant houses are acceptable anymore and we need to accept that and deal with it appropriately. This will become more and more of a problem in future too and we need to be proactive. I don't think they should recquisition the houses without compensation, but I do think that laws should be passed that state if your house is kept vacant for a certain amount of time with no adequate explanation it can be seized for public housing, or similar. It's controversial, but investors should be renting out these properties, and rising poverty and homelessness needs to be addressed. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=benwaddi;52367650]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. 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] [QUOTE] You can ignore those who say it’s wrong, or too soon, to politicise Grenfell Tower. That’s always the refrain of those who understand that a raw moment such as this brings great clarity, suddenly exposing in vivid colour a reality that, for many, may have been abstract. Such people want the moment to pass, for the national gaze to move on, so that they can return to business as usual. Which is why now is exactly the time to talk about what this blaze has illuminated. Make no mistake, the other side has not hesitated to press its agendas. “Were green targets to blame for fire tragedy?” asked the Daily Mail on its front page. [/QUOTE] Says what I want to say in better words basically. [url]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/16/grenfell-tower-rebuke-right-rampant-inequality[/url] This in opinion piece, so don't expect facts. But the above is something I feel is very true. Labour isn't politicising tragedy. It is asking questions that need to be asked.

A much better idea would be for local councils to increase the taxes on properties that are left vacant for long periods thus making buying property to leave empty less attractive and profitable. If you fill expensive property with homeless people (presumably people with low incomes) who then pays the council tax and cost of running the property? Should the actual owner have to pay for that too or is it okay for the council to lose the council tax incoming on the properties impacting on budgets? It's very easy to be generous with other people's stuff.

[QUOTE=GoingPostal13;52369836]A much better idea would be for local councils to increase the taxes on properties that are left vacant for long periods thus making buying property to leave empty less attractive and profitable. If you fill expensive property with homeless people (presumably people with low incomes) who then pays the council tax and cost of running the property? Should the actual owner have to pay for that too or is it okay for the council to lose the council tax incoming on the properties impacting on budgets? It's very easy to be generous with other people's stuff.[/QUOTE] I just want to point at as well that in the article, Corbyn isn't stating that all homeless people or people without houses should be put in requisitioned vacant houses. "And properties must be found, requisitioned if necessary, in order to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally." This significantly reduces the scale of the problems you're describing in this instance. We're not talking about national policy here - just disaster response. Given that that's the case, it's reasonable to expect the government to foot the bill on operations and council tax, or to have the council adjust their budgets to make up for the shortfall in the council tax. I would personally argue for the latter. After all, this is at least in part (I would argue primarily) a failure on the government's behalf and the council's behalf.

The way I interpret it is, he's not talking about the short term. In practice the rent on an expensive house in kensington would be more than putting them up in a hotel for the same period. Paired with the fact that houses are properly decorated and furnished to a high level and will end up getting trashed. Who's to lose out here? I'm pretty sure I watched an interview with a councilor in the area talking about sprinkler systems. He was saying many residents opposed it being installed as they would need to access their flats and such. Plus it was not inline with the strategy of containing fires.

[QUOTE=Jonzky;52370109]The way I interpret it is, he's not talking about the short term. In practice the rent on an expensive house in kensington would be more than putting them up in a hotel for the same period. Paired with the fact that houses are properly decorated and furnished to a high level and will end up getting trashed. Who's to lose out here? I'm pretty sure I watched an interview with a councilor in the area talking about sprinkler systems. He was saying many residents opposed it being installed as they would need to access their flats and such. Plus it was not inline with the strategy of containing fires.[/QUOTE] Of course he's talking about the short term. It's not an issue to make them sign an agreement requiring them to pay for damages either. Do you think people who just got offered a temp home would trash it for the fun of it? Some very small amount might but most wouldn't, especially if they are held liable for damages. [QUOTE]if necessary[/QUOTE] This is what he is suggesting if there's no where else for them to go, i.e. AFTER the hotels are full.

[QUOTE=Jonzky;52370109] I'm pretty sure I watched an interview with a councilor in the area talking about sprinkler systems. He was saying many residents opposed it being installed as they would need to access their flats and such. Plus it was not inline with the strategy of containing fires.[/QUOTE] are now blaming the residents for this flat burning down or what