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

[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] So I've done some preliminary research into this, and a few of my suspicions seemed to be the case. The three largest reasons for it I came across are the following: 1.) [b]Speculation / "buy-to-leave"[/b], where foreign investors purchase property with absolutely no intention of using it, renting it out, or otherwise operating on it; but instead intend to simply hold onto it long-term until the value of the property rises to such a level where it is profitable to sell or rent. 2.) [b]Asset diversification / allocation[/b], basically converting liquid assets (cash) into a more stable asset (property). In these cases, it is often cheaper to simply leave property untouched and unused, than it is to rent the property out and pay everything involved in managing rented property, such as upkeep. 3.) [b]Genuine financial concerns[/b], where people purchased the property with the intention of using it, but came across hardships to the point where they can't afford to maintain the property to the point where they can rent it out, and would rather keep than sell the property, as a form of insurance as their other, more liquid assets are volatile. If anyone who actually lives in the affected areas and has any insights into it would like to elaborate on the issue, I think it'd be very interesting to discuss. This is only from some cursory investigation, from an entirely detached third party. I could be completely off-base here.

[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] Why are you assuming that the well furnished houses will get trashed by poor people living in them? Also if there was such a comment made that's damage control at [I]best[/I]. We already know they cheaped out on the proper cladding to save $5000 - and it was the cheap cladding that allowed the fire to spread so quickly. There is absolutely no situation on this planet in which is this the responsibility of the residents. It's the council and the government's fault. To say otherwise is laying the blame at the bodies of the victims which is both unacceptable and morally disgusting.

I'm not saying they would deliberately damage them in any way. Just saying if you expect the properties to be in the same condition as when they were seized its a pretty naive view. They cheaped out on a £8.6m refurb? The way it probably worked was they went to contractors who bidded on the contract. They would have sold/advertised the cladding they used as something that checked all the boxes. Its the contractors fault and they should be held liable. Not saying its the residents fault in anyway way of course. I'm not certain of how the refurb was arranged and such but I would lay majority of the blame at the contractor and not the government. But this is all speculating that the cladding is the sole issue. Edit: Or whats more likely there was corruption and a shittier building firm was chosen for the job to do a substandard job.

[QUOTE=Jonzky;52370220]I'm not saying they would deliberately damage them in any way. Just saying if you expect the properties to be in the same condition as when they were seized its a pretty naive view. They cheaped out on a £8.6m refurb? The way it probably worked was they went to contractors who bidded on the contract. They would have sold/advertised the cladding they used as something that checked all the boxes. Its the contractors fault and they should be held liable. Not saying its the residents fault in anyway way of course. I'm not certain of how the refurb was arranged and such but I would lay majority of the blame at the contractor and not the government. But this is all speculating that the cladding is the sole issue. Edit: Or whats more likely there was corruption and a shittier building firm was chosen for the job to do a substandard job.[/QUOTE] Cladding has already been determined to be one of the primary issues. Yes, they cheaped out on it. Just stating the figure doesn't mean they didn't cheap out on it. I suggest you read more about this event and what has been uncovered regarding who is at fault for this. The contractor states it met the fire safety requirements. the government conducted a review of housing safety after the Lakanal fire in 2013 and then failed to implement any of its recommendations.

[QUOTE=benwaddi;52367902]The only solutions are seizing homes or letting people die in the gutter, nothing in between?[/QUOTE] i love how you speak of this as if it's the USSR wrenching property from Honest, Hard-Working People. it's literally just temporary rental of otherwise unused property by the local council. please pack your Red Scare fantasies back up your arse where they belong.

[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] Money laundering is a huge issue in the London property market, with something like a [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/london-property-market-real-estate-money-laundering-overseas-foreign-buyers-mps-a7138176.html"]£100 billion being siphoned in the city each year via the acquisition of property by shady offshore shell companies.[/URL] With flats in Kensington going for a cool £1.5 million each, there's a decent chance that a lot of the empty property is just the hiding place of corruption, embezzlement and tax evasion abroad.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52370157]So I've done some preliminary research into this, and a few of my suspicions seemed to be the case. The three largest reasons for it I came across are the following: 1.) [b]Speculation / "buy-to-leave"[/b], where foreign investors purchase property with absolutely no intention of using it, renting it out, or otherwise operating on it; but instead intend to simply hold onto it long-term until the value of the property rises to such a level where it is profitable to sell or rent. 2.) [b]Asset diversification / allocation[/b], basically converting liquid assets (cash) into a more stable asset (property). In these cases, it is often cheaper to simply leave property untouched and unused, than it is to rent the property out and pay everything involved in managing rented property, such as upkeep. 3.) [b]Genuine financial concerns[/b], where people purchased the property with the intention of using it, but came across hardships to the point where they can't afford to maintain the property to the point where they can rent it out, and would rather keep than sell the property, as a form of insurance as their other, more liquid assets are volatile. If anyone who actually lives in the affected areas and has any insights into it would like to elaborate on the issue, I think it'd be very interesting to discuss. This is only from some cursory investigation, from an entirely detached third party. I could be completely off-base here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=killerteacup;52369150]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] 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.[/QUOTE] Thanks for the explanations. I can see why this would be a problem, though imagine it requiring [I]very specific[/I] market conditions. Given that so much of this strategy relies on speculation and trading, I suspect that a major bubble burst is inevitable -- if not now then later. That's extremely risky investing (gambling, more like), and not something that I would ever recommend. Banking on appreciation of property values exceeding costs of ownership and maintenance over a given period, with no alternative capitalization plans in place (such as leasing the property for cashflow) is risky to a fault. While it may be resulting in skyrocketing property values now, that is unsustainable in the run. Eventually, the market is going to be forced to capitulate, and when it does it will be catastrophic for the speculators -- if this issue is as serious and widespread as ya'll are reporting.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;52366864]I honestly have no issue with what he said. It's not like he advocated permanently seizing currently rented property without compensation. [/QUOTE] Because his first thought was "let's take things from rich people" and not "let's put them in hotels", which is a simpler solution that isn't politically charged. The only reason that would be your default is if all your reasoning was based in resentment of rich people.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52371897]Because his first thought was "let's take things from rich people" and not "let's put them in hotels", which is a simpler solution that isn't politically charged. The only reason that would be your default is if all your reasoning was based in resentment of rich people.[/QUOTE] Hotels are 1) Wildly expensive for this kind of thing 2) Hotels opperate on razor thin profit margins typically, and your suggestion could bankrupt a few. 3) There's lots of empty residences that can be [B]temporarily[/B] re-purposed. But sure, just make this your traditional black and white "I'm right and you lefties are evil" bullshit again

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52371897]Because his first thought was "let's take things from rich people" and not "let's put them in hotels", which is a simpler solution that isn't politically charged. The only reason that would be your default is if all your reasoning was based in resentment of rich people.[/QUOTE] People have already explained why hotels would be a bad idea. Also you are skewing this pretty fucking hard to make it fit your narrative.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52371795]Thanks for the explanations. I can see why this would be a problem, though imagine it requiring [I]very specific[/I] market conditions. Given that so much of this strategy relies on speculation and trading, I suspect that a major bubble burst is inevitable -- if not now then later. That's extremely risky investing (gambling, more like), and not something that I would ever recommend. Banking on appreciation of property values exceeding costs of ownership and maintenance over a given period, with no alternative capitalization plans in place (such as leasing the property for cashflow) is risky to a fault. While it may be resulting in skyrocketing property values now, that is unsustainable in the run. Eventually, the market is going to be forced to capitulate, and when it does it will be catastrophic for the speculators -- if this issue is as serious and widespread as ya'll are reporting.[/QUOTE] You're right on both fronts. Generally over here speculation occurs mostly in areas which are either "prestigious" or being gentrified to buggery - the idea being that the suburb itself lends value to the property. Given the little I admittedly know about Kensington in London I'd say that's exactly what has happened. As for an inevitable burst, it has been predicted, but we have yet to see it, and the upward pressure on rents has been absolutely intolerable in the meantime. Building more houses is an answer that governments seem to go for - but that only gives more opportunities for speculators l People like to quote john Locke when they talk about the right to property being sacred - life liberty and property seems to be a cornerstone of that attitude. Yet even Locke understood and wrote that the right to property only holds when acquisition of property doesn't leave others bereft of that opportunity - and I'd say that's exactly the problem with property speculation.

[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] Prices fluctuate?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52371912]Hotels are 1) Wildly expensive for this kind of thing 2) Hotels opperate on razor thin profit margins typically, and your suggestion could bankrupt a few. 3) There's lots of empty residences that can be [B]temporarily[/B] re-purposed. But sure, just make this your traditional black and white "I'm right and you lefties are evil" bullshit again[/QUOTE] I know there are some oddities in this market with properties being held vacant and un-maintained by foreign speculative investors, but I do just want to chime in to clear up some points in a more usual, apples-to-apples sense. Hotel rooms versus rental properties such as apartments: 1) It's wildly expensive for the owners of rental properties to house people without pay, protection, or vetting as well. All we would be doing in that scenario is transferring the burden of cost. 2) Rental properties also tend to operate on thin margins, and not just in terms of rental revenue compared to operating expenses. Putting tenants into the property without the usual tenancy vetting processes, such as leasing agreements, security deposits, liability release forms, etc is inviting tragedy for the investor. Litigation, damage to the property, theft, legal peril from criminal activity, and so on could all ruin the investor's livelihood. 3) Ultimately, it doesn't matter how short the period of tenancy is. Whether we're talking days, weeks, or months, any interruption to the investors' cashflow or right to market and lease out a given property puts him at significant risk, and the impacts of it could echo for months, or even years.

Then I have no answers other than "whatever, streets are okay I guess" [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] I mean we can't inconvenience business owners. We can't inconvenience people who own empty rental properties. We are left with 1 option. Inconvenience the victims of this fire. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] And the people who suffered through this won't have the money, power, or political leverage to push anyone around, so they're the ones who will have to take the burden of this anyways. I don't know what we're supposed to do anymore.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52372130]Then I have no answers other than "whatever, streets are okay I guess" [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] I mean we can't inconvenience business owners. We can't inconvenience people who own empty rental properties. We are left with 1 option. Inconvenience the victims of this fire. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] And the people who suffered through this won't have the money, power, or political leverage to push anyone around, so they're the ones who will have to take the burden of this anyways. I don't know what we're supposed to do anymore.[/QUOTE] I know someone kind of said it as a joke, but honestly, why don't all the people clamoring for this put them up in their own homes and/or raise money to pay for them to live somewhere else temporarily?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52367360]Well, what are we defining as "empty?"[/QUOTE] Going just for places that had no permanent residencies registered with them for a year would get you a pretty solid yield.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372274]I know someone kind of said it as a joke, but honestly, why don't all the people clamoring for this put them up in their own homes and/or raise money to pay for them to live someone else temporarily?[/QUOTE] I'm guessing, most of this clamor is coming from the poor and working class in London, whom put blunty, are barely able to sustain themselves. They mostly don't have the room and or money to offer assistance as they are litterally on the breadline or as close to it as is. Temporary is also something that in London, is either gonna mean fucking ages or shipped out of London altogether. There is no housing avaliable for these people in the capital, at least not through the usual channel, everything that could have been used to house them has long since been bulldozed and replaced with fancy multi mullion pound appartments and homes. For the rich and powerful (to not even use), not the average joe. There is no quick fix to this and there is no easy answer.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372274]I know someone kind of said it as a joke, but honestly, why don't all the people clamoring for this put them up in their own homes and/or raise money to pay for them to live someone else temporarily?[/QUOTE] It's not really an option for a lot of people who agree with this. For example, how is it practical for me to put someone up in my 1 bedroom flat, half the country away from London?

[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] Right after the london bridge attack, Theresa May said she would change human rights laws if they get in the way of getting terrorists. I find that way more alarming than what Corbyn has said here.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372274]I know someone kind of said it as a joke, but honestly, why don't all the people clamoring for this put them up in their own homes and/or raise money to pay for them to live someone else temporarily?[/QUOTE] Well for starters, It could potentially be illegal. Yeah I live in a one bedroom flat on the other side of the country, but even if that wasn't a massive issue- you actually aren't allowed to just take in the homeless free of consequence. A mate of mine was made homeless, and we let him stay with us on our sofa- turns out having someone stay for more than 2 days a week effects the rate of council tax you have to pay, and you can be done for fraud if anyone suspects something is amiss. So the short answer is, they simply aren't capable. Why should the burden always fall on those who are already struggling so that those few who could solve the issues with a gesture can have an easier life?

[QUOTE=benwaddi;52369075]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.[/QUOTE] I don't get this complaint, doesn't everyone have an agenda?

[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;52372435]I'm guessing, most of this clamor is coming from the poor and working class in London, whom put blunty, are barely able to sustain themselves. They mostly don't have the room and or money to offer assistance as they are litterally on the breadline or as close to it as is. Temporary is also something that in London, is either gonna mean fucking ages or shipped out of London altogether. There is no housing avaliable for these people in the capital, at least not through the usual channel, everything that could have been used to house them has long since been bulldozed and replaced with fancy multi mullion pound appartments and homes. For the rich and powerful (to not even use), not the average joe. There is no quick fix to this and there is no easy answer.[/QUOTE] You don't think there are a good number of wealthy people supporting this idea? Such as Corbyn, himself? [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=squids_eye;52372454]It's not really an option for a lot of people who agree with this. For example, how is it practical for me to put someone up in my 1 bedroom flat, half the country away from London?[/QUOTE] Clearly not everyone, but I'm certain there are a good number who would be able to help directly.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372801]You don't think there are a good number of wealthy people supporting this idea? Such as Corbyn, himself?[/QUOTE] corbyn isn't a particularly wealthy politician (although he has been paid a maximum potential total of £3 million from having been an MP for 33 years and I'm not sure how much of that he actually saved up), given that he lives in a box and grows his own vegetables and has claimed about £700 total for parliamentary expenses (for printer cartridges mostly) while a lot of MPs regularly claimed £10,000 or more for second homes.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372801]You don't think there are a good number of wealthy people supporting this idea? Such as Corbyn, himself? [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Clearly not everyone, but I'm certain there are a good number who would be able to help directly.[/QUOTE] I don't want to live in any sort of society where the government, whose responsibility it is to properly regulate housing safety, can fail to uphold their duty, leading to the deaths of at least 58 people, and then fail to provide them alternative housing, instead leaving it to random people around the country to offer alternative arrangements. Oh what it would be to be in Britain right now. What I'm getting from this thread is basically a lot of people saying that an investor's vacant property is so sacred that we should force hundreds of victims out of the suburb they live in, to god knows where, or we should just put them on the streets, and hope that someone else picks up the slack for their housing and care. Better that these people suffer more than they already have, of course.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52373221]I don't want to live in any sort of society where the government, whose responsibility it is to properly regulate housing safety, can fail to uphold their duty, leading to the deaths of at least 58 people, and then fail to provide them alternative housing, instead leaving it to random people around the country to offer alternative arrangements. Oh what it would be to be in Britain right now. What I'm getting from this thread is basically a lot of people saying that an investor's vacant property is so sacred that we should force hundreds of victims out of the suburb they live in, to god knows where, or we should just put them on the streets, and hope that someone else picks up the slack for their housing and care. Better that these people suffer more than they already have, of course.[/QUOTE] Irrespective of what happens with the housing on the government's side, I still think that direct action from those able to do so would be the common sense approach to an issue like this. People can still argue for government action while providing help personally. It's just so easy to say, "Hey, that other guy should help them, and I'm going to make them do it with the power of the police force." It's a lot harder to go out and do it yourself. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] I see a hungry homeless person on the side of the road and I'll stop and get them something to eat. I'll also let them know where the local private charities are for greater levels of assistance. My first reaction isn't to fight for the government to force local McDonald's to give them free food.

If your priority after 30+ people burn to death due to government incompetence is "think of the property rights of those empty, totally unused flats" then you have some really fucked up priorities, dude.

[QUOTE=1239the;52373359]If your priority after 30+ people burn to death due to government incompetence is "think of the property rights of those empty, totally unused flats" then you have some really fucked up priorities, dude.[/QUOTE] The whole point of rights is that you have a right to them, no matter who you are. I don't have to like the results of something in order to try and protect the relevant rights of the people involved. I think it would be really cool and nice for people with empty flats to let people live in them temporarily, but I'm not willing to force them to do so.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52373365]The whole point of rights is that you have a right to them, no matter who you are. I don't have to like the results of something in order to try and protect the relevant rights of the people involved. I think it would be really cool and nice for people with empty flats to let people live in them temporarily, but I'm not willing to force them to do so.[/QUOTE] The European convention on the human rights says as follows: "(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall [B]be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law[/B] and by the general principles of international law. [B](2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest[/B] or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties." If this isn't in the general interest, then nothing is. And the UK is still party to this convention. There is no bill of rights that state that investors have a right to purchase empty flats. Even John Locke didn't think that. Nothing Corbyn is proposing is an abuse of anyone's rights so let's just park that. [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52373327]Irrespective of what happens with the housing on the government's side, I still think that direct action from those able to do so would be the common sense approach to an issue like this. People can still argue for government action while providing help personally. It's just so easy to say, "Hey, that other guy should help them, and I'm going to make them do it with the power of the police force." It's a lot harder to go out and do it yourself. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] I see a hungry homeless person on the side of the road and I'll stop and get them something to eat. I'll also let them know where the local private charities are for greater levels of assistance. My first reaction isn't to fight for the government to force local McDonald's to give them free food.[/QUOTE] See, the whole problem here is you've come up with this idea that really, everything would be okay if only the people in Kensington got up and actually [I]did[/I] something about it. Have you read anything about the public reaction to Grenfell beyond this thread? Have you seen that the Salvos over there have been given literal tonnes of clothing and food to distribute to these people? Have you seen the community funds to pay for the funerals of the dead that have already been started? You're telling us that private and public help doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Yeah no shit Sherlock Holmes. Privately, a hell of a lot is happening for these people and it's great to see. But the Government has a responsibility to its citizens who live in public housing, including providing them with said local public housing. "People can still argue for government action while providing help personally" - That's what they're [I]doing already[/I].

Honestly I don't think you should be allowed to own a property in London unless you live there. If you're leaving homes empty in a place where people desperately need them then you should have to rent it or live in it.

Seizing property is pretty retarded. But I might be in favor of a tax on vacant property levied monthly depending on a few variables. But we'll see how it turns out for Paris who's trying the same.