Should The Survivors Of The Grenfell Tower Fire, Move Into These Empty Properties?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4755434/Tycoons-homes-lie-shadow-Grenfell-Tower.html

/// Survivor Amina Mohamed, 46, said: ‘They need to make this a priority. We need to rebuild our lives because at the moment we are in limbo.

‘We do not seem to be treated as well as others in the borough because we are not rich. It is not right that there are all these empty homes.’ ///

[albaqwerty]

No.
Whilst I have sympathy with those who suffered this tragedy, the owners of these properties may not even be aware of the Grenfell Tower fire.
The owners can do what they like providing it's legal of course.

[waterboatman]

I agree albs.

[douglas9401]

Absolute nonsense. Mrs. Windsor's guest house down the road has rooms aplenty AND her old man's retiring so could help the less fortunate with their move.

[EDDIE51]

Yes the council should be able to take control of homes that are being intentionally left empty and either compulsory purchase them or requisition for temporary accommodation with compensation paid to the owners. This happened in the war and in my opinion the current situation over unsafe tower blocks , not just Grenfell, is of such a magnitude it needs radical measures.

[albaqwerty]

just a thought, how many, if any, of these empty properties are being left to rack and ruin or are they being maintained?
If being maintained, then no to compulsory purchase.
How long have they been empty for?
Does anyone know if the owners are going to return in the near future?

too many questions.....

[fiction-factory]

I think times have changed Eddie. I am pretty sure that once people are in they will never be able to move them out

[naomi24]

No.

Eddie, to say this compares to World War II, which resulted in the destruction of two million homes, is nonsense.

[fiction-factory]

One radical method might be to do the opposite- stop providing new council accommodation in London and build homes somewhere else- it might discourage so many from heading to London and discourage some from expanding families knowing the government will house them

[EDDIE51]

FF so what do the tens of thousands of people who work in London but in ordinary jobs at the basic wage do for a place to live? Commuting in every day is too expensive as well, I live 32 miles outside London and a years season ticket is £7500 and you can't claim travel expenses to get to work as an employee on basic wage!

[-Talbot-]

This happened in the war and in my opinion the current situation over unsafe tower blocks , not just Grenfell, is of such a magnitude it needs radical measures.


Wow.

[naomi24]

Eddie, // tens of thousands of people //

Tens of thousands?

[fiction-factory]

eddie - but what about the many people who live close to central London but don't work there

[EDDIE51]

160 or so tower blocks so far declared unsafe! I think that is unprecedented.

[Boto]

No. It would be difficult to get the survivors out and I imagine that because of the state of the properties then the owners wouldn't want them back.

[ToraToraTora]

no, the state cannot start seizing other people property, that way lies tyranny.

[EDDIE51]

FF if they live in London and commute out the cost is the same as living outside and commuting in. Or are you saying only the retired or those on benefit should be able to live in London?

[Old_Geezer]

No. Compulsory purchase would need a reason for doing so because of something the owner has neglected, not a desire to have something the owner presently owns. (And would take too long to be useful anyway.) If some group has umpteen places deliberately left empty then that is a separate issue and government should be able to persuade that group to bring them into use. Private individuals are entitled to have a place or two they aren't presently using since one can spend one's money on whatever one wishes. One doesn't compulsory purchase a car because someone isn't driving it.

Local accommodation already on the rent market should be used, and if more is needed then look further afield (or buy more property from the estate agents, they have windows full of it).

Envy of someone else's property just because you want it, is no basis for calling it wrong when you can't get your way. Wasn't the tenth commandment about coveting ?

[Peter Pedant]

// the owners of these properties may not even be aware of the Grenfell Tower fire. //

yeah like - "what fire is dat den- 97 dead -no way!!! I dont believe it !"
and " let me tell you whaaat - that is fake news ! no fire no way ! no dead dudes - true!"

as Proudhon said - Property is theft
( proo-who ? who he den?)

[Old_Geezer]

Claiming that property is theft, is attempted theft.

[Peter Pedant]

// no, the state cannot start seizing other people property, that way lies tyranny.//

xc that is exactly what happened in 1939 under DORA
[who she den?]( defence of the realm act)

surely surely Churchill couldnt have been starting the road to tyranny
No way hoe-zay ! n I say dat too !