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

[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] owning tons of empty apartments and houses that you just sit on as property tokens: "rights" being homeless and impoverished after losing your home and possessions through no fault of your own, left to die unless you happen upon the generosity of total strangers: "meh"

[QUOTE=1239the;52373873]owning tons of empty apartments and houses that you just sit on as property tokens: "rights" being homeless and impoverished after losing your home and possessions through no fault of your own, left to die unless you happen upon the generosity of total strangers: "meh"[/QUOTE] but don't forget that property is sacred, regardless of your abuses of property and ignorance of the plight of other humans. i mean just take care of yours and i'll take care of mine, right fellers? ;) [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52373806]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.[/QUOTE] property is regularly seized as part of police investigations, or by debtors, or in cases of abuses of property. is that also retarded? if youre failing to use a flat in a city where over 200,000 people (and rising) are homeless then i have utterly no respect for your supposed right to that property. if you lived in it and the government were seizing it then i'd speak up for you, but if you're just owning it and letting it [b]sit empty[/b] then you can fuck yourself with a rake

A few things have to be really clarified for this to work (and obviously it is not going to work, I really don't think it was said with hopes that someone would take heed, it was more a call to action): 1- what is temporary? So many people in this thread has emphasized, with bold words, of course it will be temporary re-housing, they will move out eventually. But that means nothing to the property owner. There were reports that rehousing can take up to 2 years or more, so does that mean you will be out of an asset for however many years the government takes with this? What would cause the government to move fast in providing secure and permanent housing to the people if the problem can just be passed on to private owners? Even afterwards, what if there is an greed time limit but rehousing is not done by then? Its difficult enough to get rid of illegal squatters, people who went through this horrific event will be forced out of yet another house? Or will the private owner have to deal with it forever. 2- damage/depreciation to the property. Not because the victims will cause damage just the fact that people inhabiting a place will lead to some inevitable damage. How will this be assessed and compensated? 3- which properties? Is it simply the vacant properties over x-years? Is the reason for the property being empty going to be considered? How long will this assessment take? Only people/companies with multiple houses? When most owners of houses in london cannot be identified since they are behind many shell corporations it seems very open to abuse to let government define it. What about why its vacant? I am not sure but would a building listed for an exorbitant amount of rent so it will never be taken vacant? How do you define bad intentions objectively? In the end its all moot because I cannot think it was said seriously. All of these issues I mentioned can be solved with time and proper investigations and agreements maybe but time is of the essence and the whole point is to make sure these people have roofs over their heads. If time is not taken to address these issues and people just rush to grab proerty it will just lead to years and years of headache for everyone involved.

[QUOTE=Fetret;52374167]A few things have to be really clarified for this to work (and obviously it is not going to work, I really don't think it was said with hopes that someone would take heed, it was more a call to action): 1- what is temporary? So many people in this thread has emphasized, with bold words, of course it will be temporary re-housing, they will move out eventually. But that means nothing to the property owner. There were reports that rehousing can take up to 2 years or more, so does that mean you will be out of an asset for however many years the government takes with this? What would cause the government to move fast in providing secure and permanent housing to the people if the problem can just be passed on to private owners? Even afterwards, what if there is an greed time limit but rehousing is not done by then? Its difficult enough to get rid of illegal squatters, people who went through this horrific event will be forced out of yet another house? Or will the private owner have to deal with it forever. 2- damage/depreciation to the property. Not because the victims will cause damage just the fact that people inhabiting a place will lead to some inevitable damage. How will this be assessed and compensated? 3- which properties? Is it simply the vacant properties over x-years? Is the reason for the property being empty going to be considered? How long will this assessment take? Only people/companies with multiple houses? When most owners of houses in london cannot be identified since they are behind many shell corporations it seems very open to abuse to let government define it. What about why its vacant? I am not sure but would a building listed for an exorbitant amount of rent so it will never be taken vacant? How do you define bad intentions objectively? In the end its all moot because I cannot think it was said seriously. All of these issues I mentioned can be solved with time and proper investigations and agreements maybe but time is of the essence and the whole point is to make sure these people have roofs over their heads. If time is not taken to address these issues and people just rush to grab proerty it will just lead to years and years of headache for everyone involved.[/QUOTE] See these are the useful sort of questions of how, not why. I'm sure if this were to be instituted as policy that these questions could be answered in a satisfactory way

[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'm not arguing that it should be completely disallowed to requisition private properties for temporary emergency homing, only that it needs to be done with respect to the dangerous position you're putting the property owners in, that the government [B]needs[/B] to be ready to step in and offer [I]fair[/I] financial compensation to the owners of any temporarily requisitioned properties, including: lost rent, damages, additional convenience fees to help cover the opportunity cost of removing the property owner's autonomy of ownership during this period, etc). Furthermore, the owners must be exempt from their traditional landlord-tenant liabilities and responsibilities for protection against litigation against tenants they may not have wanted or prepared for moving into properties that may not have been up to the standards that they would need to be for paying tenants (IE-- if I'm working on rehabilitating an apartment building with multiple units, and the government forces me to accomodate emergency tenants before the renovations are completed and before the property is up to adequate living standards). Any proposal to force these property owners to home people [I]at their own expense[/I], and without offering protections or guarantees, is only creating [B]additional[/B] victims. That should be the last thing we want to do 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 somewhere else temporarily?[/QUOTE] because most people in the UK don't have the space to house entire displaced families if i had a spare flat, sure

I'm British housing expert but isn't the average British house and/or flat pretty small in comparison to say the average house in North America?

So anyway Former Labours Politicians on twitter are basically saying to watch Corbyn like a fucking hawk. And watch which route he takes with the requisitioning.

If the government do a lease project and pay a share of the rent along side former tenants I can't see it being much of a problem. This is is the perfect example of when a government needs to step in and look after it's citizens.

Capitalism is in a bad spot right now, we're seeing severe flaws in the system. Basic supply and demand is failing us. We have the supply, we have the demand, and yet the supply is simply out of reach. A crack in the foundation like that cannot be ignored forever, if we sit here and let it get worse, something's gonna give.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52374929]So anyway Former Labours Politicians on twitter are basically saying to watch Corbyn like a fucking hawk. And watch which route he takes with the requisitioning.[/QUOTE] Ok, and? Given the history of blairism in the UK, former labour politicians not trusting Corbyn is irrelevant and old news, dude

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52374929]So anyway Former Labours Politicians on twitter are basically saying to watch Corbyn like a fucking hawk. And watch which route he takes with the requisitioning.[/QUOTE] former labour politicians started the Iraq War

[QUOTE=killerteacup;52375603]Ok, and? Given the history of blairism in the UK, former labour politicians not trusting Corbyn is irrelevant and old news, dude[/QUOTE] Last election pretty much destroyed any credibility they had left, they would much rather the Tories win than see Corbyn win.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;52375807]Last election pretty much destroyed any credibility they had left, they would much rather the Tories win than see Corbyn win.[/QUOTE] OmniConsUme is just grasping, really

Did I understand this straight that the property owned by people who never lived there should be taken from them and 'given to the poor'?

[QUOTE=CruelAddict;52377312]Did I understand this straight that the property owned by people who never lived there should be taken from them and 'given to the poor'?[/QUOTE] No, he's calling for the properties to be used as temporary housing.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52377331]No, he's calling for the properties to be used as temporary housing.[/QUOTE] Nevermind then.

Don't think he's ever stated that it would be temporary, people are just assuming. [quote] Asked by ITV interviewer Robert Peston if he would “seize it forever, or just take it for as long as they’re needed”, he replied: “Occupy, compulsory purchase it, requisition it, there’s a lot of things you can do.” [/quote]

[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] [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.[/QUOTE] Another part of it is negative gearing. In Australia, any losses incurred from a property that has higher costs than income can be used as a tax deduction. So the wealthy buy up properties, operate them at a loss or not at all, and collectively save themselves billions in taxes. Plus once they sell the property, the capital gains tax is halved as long as the property has been held for at least a year, making property a much more attractive investment compared to others.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;52374802]I'm British housing expert but isn't the average British house and/or flat pretty small in comparison to say the average house in North America?[/QUOTE] Small is an understatement. In London, you are looking at tiny as a more apt descriptor. In the rest of the UK, it would tend towards being small. Land is at a premium here.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52373881] property is regularly seized as part of police investigations, or by debtors, or in cases of abuses of property. is that also retarded? if youre failing to use a flat in a city where over 200,000 people (and rising) are homeless then i have utterly no respect for your supposed right to that property. if you lived in it and the government were seizing it then i'd speak up for you, but if you're just owning it and letting it [B]sit empty[/B] then you can fuck yourself with a rake[/QUOTE] Obviously I mean in this context. Police investigations are fine with warrant, debtors can seize your home because you failed the contract, etc.. I wonder if you'd be happy about having your wealth seized to help the third world too. even a homeless person in England is better off than the average CAR citizen. Also why stop with seizing empty flats? What if we have a housing scarcity, and I decide that people's houses are too big? Do you REALLY need individual rooms for each of your children? How about instead, I force homeless people to move into your house. This ridiculousness is what taxation can address without being so batshit as to assume that the government can run right up to you and take your stuff because someone wants it while still being justifiable as we tax for externalities all the time (e.g. carbon, cigs.) [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52375238]Capitalism is in a bad spot right now, we're seeing severe flaws in the system. Basic supply and demand is failing us. We have the supply, we have the demand, and yet the supply is simply out of reach. A crack in the foundation like that cannot be ignored forever, if we sit here and let it get worse, something's gonna give.[/QUOTE] wtf demand isn't desire, it's desire AND ability to purchase something. that's how the definition has always been. It's why we can graph demand as a falling line because when your price level increases people won't demand as much.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377721]Obviously I mean in this context. Police investigations are fine with warrant, debtors can seize your home because you failed the contract, etc.. I wonder if you'd be happy about having your wealth seized to help the third world too. even a homeless person in England is better off than the average CAR citizen. Also why stop with seizing empty flats? What if we have a housing scarcity, and I decide that people's houses are too big? Do you REALLY need individual rooms for each of your children? How about instead, I force homeless people to move into your house. .[/QUOTE] if youre have to use a slippery slope fallacy to even begin to have a point then please don't even bother trying to debate with me. i clearly stated the limits of what i was proposing and why people are overreacting, yet obviously you can't wrap your head around my argument and can only retort with propaganda-like Red Scare tosh. [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] i wonder why it's alright for debtors (who are pretty much consistent predators on the needy) to seize property that's in use but the local government effectively renting empty properties that are otherwise completely unused and compensating the owners is Unfair and Communism and will lead to me having my house and money shipped off to Uganda to help the starving :thinking:

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52377767]if youre have to use a slippery slope fallacy to even begin to have a point then please don't even bother trying to debate with me. i clearly stated the limits of what i was proposing and why people are overreacting, yet obviously you can't wrap your head around my argument and can only retort with propaganda-like Red Scare tosh.[/QUOTE] modus tollens =/ slippery slope my dude

and for the record, we've seen in around two hundred years of continued and growing poverty that taxation alone does [B]not[/B] work on its own for closing the inequality gap. if anything it worsens it lol.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52377785]and for the record, we've seen in [B]around two hundred years of continued and growing poverty[/B] that taxation alone does [B]not[/B] work on its own for closing the inequality gap. if anything it worsens it lol.[/QUOTE] :why:

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377782]modus tollens =/ slippery slope my dude[/QUOTE] whatever you call it your argument is wank and you can't really bring up anything but "WHAT IF THEY SOLD YOUR HOME TO AFRICA TO FEED CHILDREN??? WHERE DOES IT END??" like im not suggesting that every fucking empty home should be subsidized. i'm not suggesting they should be outright seized. im suggesting that they should be requisitioned by the local govts and provided to the victims of Grenfell because losing your home in a fire is fucking dreadful. [editline]19th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377789]:why:[/QUOTE] the UK has had severe wealth inequality issues since the industrialization era and while by and average the base conditions have improved, the overall breadth of inequality hasn't. the only reason things have gotten as better as they have (which isn't a huge amount) is simply because society has improved as a whole, not because anything conclusive has been done to address the class divide. im going to patronize your face off but i will outright say that this is different to the divide that you probably understand living in the US. it's a very UK-centric issue. most of your wealthy and well-knowns are usually business owners, or captains of industry who have made themselves, whereas our wealthy and well-known stem from hundreds of years of bankers and gentry. ascension to those heights of wealth is an entirely late 20th century concept here in the UK, and it's only lately that more independent, unconnected people have managed to make names for themselves. i can honestly count the self-made and not born-in businessmen i know on one hand. you ever wondered why there isn't a british equivalent to Elon Musk? because the classist divide simply will not allow it to happen. this is also why as much as i love him i distrust Corbyn still. he is part of the political class, and it is nearly impossible for someone to reach such a level of office without being "In". even Rupert Murdoch was aware of this and scared of it, the sheer exclusionism of the british elite, before he moved to the US. it's part of why he makes such mass-market trash-appeal papers. he believed information and education should be for the masses, rather than the few. before the Murdoch papers, newspapers were typically focused at middle-upper class people, and television was viewed as the fool's educator, only now Murdoch has become the dragon he sought to slay, and acts as a disinformation channel for the elite he is now a part of. as with most corporate sharks, he sought only to destroy the elite so as to become the elite. and this roundabouts back to my point: in two hundred years of burgeoning civilization, the UK class and wealth gap has only widened. and no, this isn't Duh Illuminatee it's a literal, tangible thing and it's much more real than that. ever wonder why most prime ministers and politicians of note in the UK come from a select handful of schools? it's literally a clique.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52377790]whatever you call it your argument is wank and you can't really bring up anything but "WHAT IF THEY SOLD YOUR HOME TO AFRICA TO FEED CHILDREN??? WHERE DOES IT END??" like im not suggesting that every fucking empty home should be subsidized. i'm not suggesting they should be outright seized. im suggesting that they should be requisitioned by the local govts and provided to the victims of Grenfell because losing your home in a fire is fucking dreadful.[/QUOTE] I mean that's an okay mischaracterization of me I guess [quote]if you lived in it and the government were seizing it then i'd speak up for you, but if you're just owning it and letting it sit empty then you can fuck yourself with a rake[/quote] but you did defend seizure? and what do you think requisition even means. do they get paid for it, etc.. also my small response to the extra bit you added is that I don't see wealth inequality as inherently bad. It's always been necessary for a society to develop. Improving the general welfare is my game and as long as that's happening I'm p. happy lol.

we live in a capitalism-focused society, so of course any sort of requisition of property would invariably have to come with recompense. were it a perfect world we would be able to share property without this alright jack kind of attitude but then again in a perfect world we wouldn't have nearly three thousand people homeless in what is supposed to be a World City and center of wealth and culture.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52377782]modus tollens =/ slippery slope my dude[/QUOTE] naw that was a slippery slope right there, using a fancy word you learned in critical thinking class to bamboozle people doesn't change that. "rehouse people who lost their home in a fire to empty properties nearby" leads to "take your wealth to give to africa" There's stuff you can find wrong with this plan without having to resort to weird hyperbole. Better to use a valid, honest argument imo.

Also I don't think I really elucidated this, but the point of my tax is that we can use that to help the homeless by promoting education, building govt. housing (e.g. singapore,) etc.. I'm not saying just kick them to the dirt and say lol sorry you arent rich [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52377827]naw that was a slippery slope right there, using a fancy word you learned in critical thinking class to bamboozle people doesn't change that. "rehouse people who lost their home in a fire to empty properties nearby" leads to "take your wealth to give to africa" There's stuff you can find wrong with this plan without having to resort to weird hyperbole. Better to use a valid, honest argument imo.[/QUOTE] The logical form of the slippery slope is not invalid. It can fail and be fallacious in 2 ways, either the chains are ridiculous, or the end result isn't undesirable. What I was getting at is that if we expand the idea of seizure of property to help those in need, why only that? Vacant homes is one thing, but poor usage of resources is far far more disastrous (people have too large houses, too many vehicles, etc..) I don't see the difference; vacant homes are inefficiently used resources in the face of scarcity just like many other things.