Why Does It Take A Tragedy For People To Act?

I am really happy to see that people have already raised 2 million for those who have lost their homes to the fire by the Grenfell crowding campaign and countless other things are being done to help raise more money. I applaud all this. You then see a call by Corbyn to have homes requisition for those who have lost their homes. I agree that any empty homes should have owners open their their properties, until a time that suitable accommodation can be found.

What I do not understand, is that we have 250,000 homeless in this country and yet we do not see the same to help them by the general public. Where is the call to get them off the streets and into houses?

Why does it sadly take for people to act only after such a tragic loss of life?

Why are we not doing this daily to help ensure nobody is homeless. I do not want to take anything away from the great massive support being done after this tragedy, but why can this not be done to end homelessness also in this country?

It violates conservative norms, and people feel the pull of conservative thinking in their daily life.

Natural law in the 1700's taught that there is a state of nature, and that it is wrong to go against the natural laws of nature (strong influence of the garden of eden).  This is called ethical naturalism, and it means that anything natural is good...something we still see in, say, organic foods or environmentalism.  More importantly, this was laissez-faire reasoning (leave the natural alone) that really took hold in economics.

Then came Jean Jacques Rousseau, who taught "man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains."  For Rousseau, the very nature of civil government was the fall...and no question, at the time European civil government was all aristocracy and monarchy, if not tyranny.  So Natural Law was brought along further to mean, any interference was contrary to ethical naturalism.

Fast forward.  Today we have Tory and Republican thinking, which preaches any government program is contrary to natural law.  Whenever Tories take power, it's all deregulation and privatization, because that is closer to natural law.  

We point to indicia (or vindication) of natural law, as being lower unemployment and reduced taxes, and call it a better standard of living.  Things are better when we get out of the way (goes the theory).

We get in the way in forms of welfare, regulations, and in particular, help for the homeless (who are just trying to cheat the laws of nature).  To natural law thinkers, the homeless are not ill, they are cheats. The best way to treat them is to let them live the consequences of bad behavior, and then maybe they will (according to natural law) pick themselves up, stop being lazy, and get a job (reduced unemployment being a good thing, remember?).

It all goes back to natural law.  What is natural?  Because that is the state in which we are best served.

Democrats and social democracy, on the other hand, argue that the good comes from the minds and morals of man (or women, I speak generically), not nature.  Ethical naturalism is brutal, and humanism means man makes the good in life.  Man can invent his way out of misery, if only he puts his mind to it.

Conservatives and Tories are those who hold back progress.  They oppose feeding and housing the homeless, just as they oppose feeding and housing children, public protections (regulations) and universal healthcare.  It's all in the name of their beloved theory of natural law.

I knew someone would make it political
Why?
Whatever the government, no matter left or right, millions are homeless world wide Quill
Obama did not end homelessness, hence why no Government can be trusted to end this problem. They are sadly seen as a stain on society and not a people to help. Many are veterans, who have served their country and what do the people do? Ignore them,

Some help, as they give to charity, but why is it that even the left fail as much as the right, when it comes to homelessness?

What on earth!? How is it not political? You made it political by your questions:

Thorin wrote:What I do not understand, is that we have 250,000 homeless in this country and yet we do not see the same to help them by the general public. Where is the call to get them off the streets and into houses?

Why does it sadly take for people to act only after such a tragic loss of life?

Who are the "WE", if you are not referring to the collective of the population. That is by definition, political.

Original Quill wrote:What on earth!?  How is it not political?  You made it political by your questions:

Thorin wrote:What I do not understand, is that we have 250,000 homeless in this country and yet we do not see the same to help them by the general public. Where is the call to get them off the streets and into houses?

Why does it sadly take for people to act only after such a tragic loss of life?

Who are the "WE", if you are not referring to the collective of the population.  That is by definition, political.

You made it political by Tories and conservatives.

Do we still have a massive problem with homelessness Quill?

Is blaming left or right going to resolve this?

There is a political element to the Grenfell tragedy. Labour want strict regulation on health and safety which may have prevented the scale of death. The Tories want low regulation which can and does exasperate such disasters.

Eilzel wrote:There is a political element to the Grenfell tragedy. Labour want strict regulation on health and safety which may have prevented the scale of death. The Tories want low regulation which can and does exasperate such disasters.

And yet another goes off tangent here to my point.

Did Labour want strict regulation whilst in power and in their own council areas that they have and had been in power Eilzel?

Again why I now dispair at those who use the deaths of people to make political points

Eilzel wrote:There is a political element to the Grenfell tragedy. Labour want strict regulation on health and safety which may have prevented the scale of death. The Tories want low regulation which can and does exasperate such disasters.

Oh rubbish. Labour as just as bad as the Tories for getting fuck all done. They're both as bad as each other.

I gave you a greeny HT as I totally agree with you.

I also think blaming May for this is ridiculous. She might be guilt of some things but not this.

It was, I think, a Labour Government who built these flats and at the time they were great as the old houses were slums and these were modern flats and could house far more people.

The man who's fridge was supposed to have started the fire, why didn't he try to put it out and call Fire Brigade.

I doubt that many people know the exact procedure for building regs and fire regs, and they don't know who is responsible for what. Until they do know, passing the blame around is pointless.

The disaster happened on her watch.
Her party have had 6 years to tidy up thd safety of high rise flats, but repeatedly voted against it.
Ultimately  , the captain carries the responsibility for the ship and it's crew, even if he/she was alseep at the time the ship hit the iceberg.
May must carry the burden of responsibility, and do the honourable thing and step down.

Angry Andy wrote:The disaster happened on her watch.
Her party have had 6 years to tidy up thd safety of high rise flats, but repeatedly voted against it.
Ultimately  , the captain carries the responsibility for the ship and it's crew, even if he/she was alseep at the time the ship hit the iceberg.
May must carry the burden of responsibility, and do the honourable thing and step down.

It's a good job Mr Corbyn didn't get in then isn't it? You'd be saying he should step down because it happened on his watch.

http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/corbyn-tried-pass-law-make-homes-safe-last-year-conservatives-rejected/14/06/

This may or may not have directly impacted Grenfell tower. But the fact it may have is reason to be angry. And concerned that the Conservatives obviously did not see this as important, putting many more lives at risk. There will be changes now though (I seriously hope). But this idea of 'regulation' as something we should have less of, is hopefully a BS ideology that people now see HAS to stop. You CANNOT trust private interests to serve the interests of ordinary people- that is one of the reasons governments are required in the first place.

So is anyone actually going to address my point?

Eilzel wrote:http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/corbyn-tried-pass-law-make-homes-safe-last-year-conservatives-rejected/14/06/

This may or may not have directly impacted Grenfell tower. But the fact it may have is reason to be angry. And concerned that the Conservatives obviously did not see this as important, putting many more lives at risk. There will be changes now though (I seriously hope). But this idea of 'regulation' as something we should have less of, is hopefully a BS ideology that people now see HAS to stop. You CANNOT trust private interests to serve the interests of ordinary people- that is one of the reasons governments are required in the first place.

There aren't any details of what was proposed, so I can't say if it would have helped. One good things is that landlords must get gas appliances checked once a year, but I don't know who brought that in. Tenants should always insist they do that - and preferably ask to see the appropriate certificate when they move in.

Thorin wrote:So is anyone actually going to address my point?

I agree with the idea of using empty homes for the victims of Grenfell.

As to the problem with homeless people- what would you suggest? Perhaps all empty homes should be used for the homeless- but then people will complain they are being given something for doing nothing. Or that it isn't fair on people who do own those empty houses.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:So is anyone actually going to address my point?

I agree with the idea of using empty homes for the victims of Grenfell.

As to the problem with homeless people- what would you suggest? Perhaps all empty homes should be used for the homeless- but then people will complain they are being given something for doing nothing. Or that it isn't fair on people who do own those empty houses.

Something for doing nothing?

They are homeless and we need to get them off the streets, as they should never be homeless in a nation that is wealthy. My point is though why do we not see the same help and reaction for all those homeless?

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:So is anyone actually going to address my point?

I agree with the idea of using empty homes for the victims of Grenfell.

As to the problem with homeless people- what would you suggest? Perhaps all empty homes should be used for the homeless- but then people will complain they are being given something for doing nothing. Or that it isn't fair on people who do own those empty houses.

Something for doing nothing?

They are homeless and we need to get them off the streets, as they should never be homeless in a nation that is wealthy. My point is though why do we not see the same help and reaction for all those homeless?

It's not me who would see it as something for nothing, but it would be presented or viewed that way by many. People already hate on those who don't work but claim benefits (with little effort to differentiate scroungers from the majority of genuine claimants).

I agree, we should house the homeless and it is a disgrace to have such people in a major developed nation.

Why don't we get the same reaction? Because people put it out of their mind unless it's thrown in their faces. Like the immigrant crisis in 2015. A photograph of a dead child on a beach and everyone wanted to help refugees, at least for a time. Prior to that the number of people who showed any care whatsoever was a minority. Sad, but unfortunately true.

magica wrote:I gave you a greeny HT as I totally agree with you.

I also think blaming May for this is ridiculous. She might be guilt of some things but not this.

It was, I think, a Labour Government who built these flats and at the time they were great as the old houses were slums and these were modern flats and could house far more people.

The man who's fridge was supposed to have started the fire, why didn't he try to put it out and call Fire Brigade.

Utter bullshit...

Horatio is deflecting, pure and simple..

Fuck off Wolfie you don't have a clue, you just like to put your oar in and insult posters.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

magica wrote:I gave you a greeny HT as I totally agree with you.

I also think blaming May for this is ridiculous. She might be guilt of some things but not this.

It was, I think, a Labour Government who built these flats and at the time they were great as the old houses were slums and these were modern flats and could house far more people.

The man who's fridge was supposed to have started the fire, why didn't he try to put it out and call Fire Brigade.

Utter bullshit...

Horatio is deflecting,  pure and simple..

Stop with the love talk...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:The disaster happened on her watch.
Her party have had 6 years to tidy up thd safety of high rise flats, but repeatedly voted against it.
Ultimately  , the captain carries the responsibility for the ship and it's crew, even if he/she was alseep at the time the ship hit the iceberg.
May must carry the burden of responsibility, and do the honourable thing and step down.

It's a good job Mr Corbyn didn't get in then isn't it? You'd be saying he should step down because it happened on his watch.

Of course he wouldn't. It would still be a Tory mess. Ignoring the fact that Blair set the ball in motion in the first place.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Something for doing nothing?

They are homeless and we need to get them off the streets, as they should never be homeless in a nation that is wealthy. My point is though why do we not see the same help and reaction for all those homeless?

It's not me who would see it as something for nothing, but it would be presented or viewed that way by many. People already hate on those who don't work but claim benefits (with little effort to differentiate scroungers from the majority of genuine claimants).

I agree, we should house the homeless and it is a disgrace to have such people in a major developed nation.

Why don't we get the same reaction? Because people put it out of their mind unless it's thrown in their faces. Like the immigrant crisis in 2015. A photograph of a dead child on a beach and everyone wanted to help refugees, at least for a time. Prior to that the number of people who showed any care whatsoever was a minority. Sad, but unfortunately true.

What needs to be done is to stop selling off huge swathes of housing to all these foreign investors. Sadly, money will always speak louder than the needs of ordinary people.

Thorin wrote:I am really happy to see that people have already raised 2 million for those who have lost their homes to the fire by the Grenfell crowding campaign and countless other things are being done to help raise more money. I applaud all this. You then see a call by Corbyn to have homes requisition for those who have lost their homes. I agree that any empty homes should have owners open their their properties, until a time that suitable accommodation can be found.

What I do not understand, is that we have 250,000 homeless in this country and yet we do not see the same to help them by the general public. Where is the call to get them off the streets and into houses?

Why does it sadly take for people to act only after such a tragic loss of life?

Why are we not doing this daily to help ensure nobody is homeless. I do not want to take anything away from the great massive support being done after this tragedy, but why can this not be done to end homelessness also in this country?

One could point the obvious fact that the charitable response of the community helping the residents of Grenfell, is not actually their homelessness problem.

At best, the now homeless are being temporarily housed in communal facilities. This is not a long term solution.

Before the hundreds made homeless a few days ago, there were about 75,000 homeless in the UK and awaiting social housing.

I think it's a combination of logistics of building enough homes, economics (micro and macro) and yes, politics.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Something for doing nothing?

They are homeless and we need to get them off the streets, as they should never be homeless in a nation that is wealthy. My point is though why do we not see the same help and reaction for all those homeless?

It's not me who would see it as something for nothing, but it would be presented or viewed that way by many. People already hate on those who don't work but claim benefits (with little effort to differentiate scroungers from the majority of genuine claimants).

I agree, we should house the homeless and it is a disgrace to have such people in a major developed nation.

Why don't we get the same reaction? Because people put it out of their mind unless it's thrown in their faces. Like the immigrant crisis in 2015. A photograph of a dead child on a beach and everyone wanted to help refugees, at least for a time. Prior to that the number of people who showed any care whatsoever was a minority. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Agree Eilze, but this is my point in how people do switch off, when they never should.

Original Quill wrote:It violates conservative norms, and people feel the pull of conservative thinking in their daily life.

Natural law in the 1700's taught that there is a state of nature, and that it is wrong to go against the natural laws of nature (strong influence of the garden of eden).  This is called ethical naturalism, and it means that anything natural is good...something we still see in, say, organic foods or environmentalism.  More importantly, this was laissez-faire reasoning (leave the natural alone) that really took hold in economics.

Then came Jean Jacques Rousseau, who taught "man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains."  For Rousseau, the very nature of civil government was the fall...and no question, at the time European civil government was all aristocracy and monarchy, if not tyranny.  So Natural Law was brought along further to mean, any interference was contrary to ethical naturalism.

Fast forward.  Today we have Tory and Republican thinking, which preaches any government program is contrary to natural law.  Whenever Tories take power, it's all deregulation and privatization, because that is closer to natural law.  

We point to indicia (or vindication) of natural law, as being lower unemployment and reduced taxes, and call it a better standard of living.  Things are better when we get out of the way (goes the theory).

We get in the way in forms of welfare, regulations, and in particular, help for the homeless (who are just trying to cheat the laws of nature).  To natural law thinkers, the homeless are not ill, they are cheats. The best way to treat them is to let them live the consequences of bad behavior, and then maybe they will (according to natural law) pick themselves up, stop being lazy, and get a job (reduced unemployment being a good thing, remember?).

It all goes back to natural law.  What is natural?  Because that is the state in which we are best served.

Democrats and social democracy, on the other hand, argue that the good comes from the minds and morals of man (or women, I speak generically), not nature.  Ethical naturalism is brutal, and humanism means man makes the good in life.  Man can invent his way out of misery, if only he puts his mind to it.

Conservatives and Tories are those who hold back progress.  They oppose feeding and housing the homeless, just as they oppose feeding and housing children, public protections (regulations) and universal healthcare.  It's all in the name of their beloved theory of natural law.

"Why does it take a tragedy for people to act?"
Acting proactively to prevent emergencies is too late and frankly, too expensive.
All the govt can do now is wait for crises to happen, then go in and try and sort things out.

That is the role they play.
It's known as "Crisis management" .

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:I am really happy to see that people have already raised 2 million for those who have lost their homes to the fire by the Grenfell crowding campaign and countless other things are being done to help raise more money. I applaud all this. You then see a call by Corbyn to have homes requisition for those who have lost their homes. I agree that any empty homes should have owners open their their properties, until a time that suitable accommodation can be found.

What I do not understand, is that we have 250,000 homeless in this country and yet we do not see the same to help them by the general public. Where is the call to get them off the streets and into houses?

Why does it sadly take for people to act only after such a tragic loss of life?

Why are we not doing this daily to help ensure nobody is homeless. I do not want to take anything away from the great massive support being done after this tragedy, but why can this not be done to end homelessness also in this country?

One could point the obvious fact that the charitable response of the community helping the residents of Grenfell, is not actually their homelessness problem.

At best, the now homeless are being temporarily housed in communal facilities. This is not a long term solution.

Before the hundreds made homeless a few days ago, there were about 75,000 homeless in the UK and awaiting social housing.  

I think it's a combination of logistics of building enough homes, economics (micro and macro) and yes, politics.

Sorry did not see your post Zack

I understand your points and agree, but is it about building more homes? The Government does not need to build anymore, when they could simple purchase them.

This "housing surplus" has nearly doubled from 800,000 spare homes in 1996 to 1.4million homes at any one time in 2014. These “empty homes” are typically second homes, or vacant properties which are either left empty or are awaiting for tenants or home owners to move in.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It violates conservative norms, and people feel the pull of conservative thinking in their daily life.

Natural law in the 1700's taught that there is a state of nature, and that it is wrong to go against the natural laws of nature (strong influence of the garden of eden).  This is called ethical naturalism, and it means that anything natural is good...something we still see in, say, organic foods or environmentalism.  More importantly, this was laissez-faire reasoning (leave the natural alone) that really took hold in economics.

Then came Jean Jacques Rousseau, who taught "man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains."  For Rousseau, the very nature of civil government was the fall...and no question, at the time European civil government was all aristocracy and monarchy, if not tyranny.  So Natural Law was brought along further to mean, any interference was contrary to ethical naturalism.

Fast forward.  Today we have Tory and Republican thinking, which preaches any government program is contrary to natural law.  Whenever Tories take power, it's all deregulation and privatization, because that is closer to natural law.  

We point to indicia (or vindication) of natural law, as being lower unemployment and reduced taxes, and call it a better standard of living.  Things are better when we get out of the way (goes the theory).

We get in the way in forms of welfare, regulations, and in particular, help for the homeless (who are just trying to cheat the laws of nature).  To natural law thinkers, the homeless are not ill, they are cheats. The best way to treat them is to let them live the consequences of bad behavior, and then maybe they will (according to natural law) pick themselves up, stop being lazy, and get a job (reduced unemployment being a good thing, remember?).

It all goes back to natural law.  What is natural?  Because that is the state in which we are best served.

Democrats and social democracy, on the other hand, argue that the good comes from the minds and morals of man (or women, I speak generically), not nature.  Ethical naturalism is brutal, and humanism means man makes the good in life.  Man can invent his way out of misery, if only he puts his mind to it.

Conservatives and Tories are those who hold back progress.  They oppose feeding and housing the homeless, just as they oppose feeding and housing children, public protections (regulations) and universal healthcare.  It's all in the name of their beloved theory of natural law.

"Why does it take a tragedy for people to act?"
Acting proactively to prevent emergencies is too late and frankly, too expensive.
All the govt can do now is wait for crises to happen, then go in and try and sort things out.

That is the role they play.
It's known as "Crisis management" .

Only when there is a crisis does it bring to light what is wrong. This is the same for RW as for LW.

The real question is why does the RW still lag behind when there is a crisis? It's their ideology...laissez-faire thinking inhibits government action.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:So is anyone actually going to address my point?

I agree with the idea of using empty homes for the victims of Grenfell.

As to the problem with homeless people- what would you suggest? Perhaps all empty homes should be used for the homeless- but then people will complain they are being given something for doing nothing. Or that it isn't fair on people who do own those empty houses.

I don't know a great deal about that part pf London, but I would imagine that many of those "empty" properties are owned by people from overseas who together with members of their families use them when visiting the UK for either work or pleasure.

It would seem pretty obvious to me that if they had bought them and did not intend to use them they would have let them out, even on a short term basis, not only to gain an income to pay for the various charges and taxes but also to ensure that they were looked after properly. They must, after all, represent a substantial investment.

It's Corbyn's use of the word "seize" that I find interesting. "Property is theft," didn't someone once say?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I agree with the idea of using empty homes for the victims of Grenfell.

As to the problem with homeless people- what would you suggest? Perhaps all empty homes should be used for the homeless- but then people will complain they are being given something for doing nothing. Or that it isn't fair on people who do own those empty houses.

I don't know a great deal about that part pf London, but I would imagine that many of those "empty" properties are owned by people from overseas who together with members of their families use them when visiting the UK for either work or pleasure.

It would seem pretty obvious to me that if they had bought them and did not intend to use them they would have let them out, even on a short term basis, not only to gain an income to pay for the various charges and taxes but also to ensure that they were looked after properly. They must, after all, represent a substantial investment.

It's Corbyn's use of the word "seize" that I find interesting. "Property is theft," didn't someone once say?

I think it's wrong that so many homes are purchased from those abroad who don't live in them. How many homes do you need? The Government should put a stop to it.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I agree with the idea of using empty homes for the victims of Grenfell.

As to the problem with homeless people- what would you suggest? Perhaps all empty homes should be used for the homeless- but then people will complain they are being given something for doing nothing. Or that it isn't fair on people who do own those empty houses.

I don't know a great deal about that part pf London, but I would imagine that many of those "empty" properties are owned by people from overseas who together with members of their families use them when visiting the UK for either work or pleasure.

It would seem pretty obvious to me that if they had bought them and did not intend to use them they would have let them out, even on a short term basis, not only to gain an income to pay for the various charges and taxes but also to ensure that they were looked after properly. They must, after all, represent a substantial investment.

It's Corbyn's use of the word "seize" that I find interesting. "Property is theft," didn't someone once say?

Then I suggest you do some reading:

https://www.ft.com/content/6954f798-cb2c-11e5-a8ef-ea66e967dd44

The impact of ‘buy to leave’ on prime London’s housing market

Should we be morally outraged by the phenomenon called “buy to leave” or should we dismiss it as a tiny if inevitable consequence of a resilient housing market?

Politicians and estate agents use the term for properties bought as assets, intentionally and permanently left unoccupied until they appreciate and are sold at some later date.

With prime London housing prices rising 73 per cent from March 2009 to November 2014, according to Knight Frank, the existence of buy to leave is perhaps unsurprising.

Yet while the capital’s Evening Standard newspaper claims buy to leave is so prolific it has created “ghost towns of the super-rich”, no one knows for sure how big the problem is, and in the absence of any central database the authorities resort to educated guesswork.

Kensington and Chelsea’s Conservative council, for example, has used 2011 Census data to find 9,169 flats and houses classified as vacant — 10.5 per cent of the borough’s total housing stock. The same authority’s 2012 council tax returns show 10,564 empty homes, which is 12.1 per cent of the stock. Some “empties” may be second homes of people living chiefly out of London or out of the UK; some, however, will be intentionally vacant assets.

Labour-run Islington, a north London borough, has adopted a Supplementary Planning Document requiring all new homes built within its boundaries to be regularly occupied in an attempt to prevent buy to leave.

“New homes have to, at the very least, be lived in. I think that’s a pretty reasonable thing to ask,” says James Murray, the council’s housing spokesman.

One byproduct of this debate is the agreement between political opponents that buy to leave is in some way damaging. Conservative Zac Goldsmith and Labour’s Sadiq Khan — the two leading candidates in May’s election for Mayor of London — have both called for the curbing of buy to leave, with Khan specifying that he would use planning powers to restrict it.

Many property industry players appear to agree that it has had a detrimental effect.

“Buy to leave is endemic in prime central London and the new-build sector. [It is] a grave issue in a city where many people are looking for somewhere to live,” says Guy Meacock of Prime Purchase, the buying arm of Savills.

“The more international an area, the more common it is. There’s an arc from Knightsbridge through Belgravia, Mayfair and up as far as St John’s Wood and Hampstead where this has been especially popular,” says Roarie Scarisbrick of Property Vision, a buying agency.



“One Hyde Park must be the most high profile. It’s only 30 per cent occupied at any one time and some of the apartments have never been occupied,” says Mark Parkinson of Middleton Advisors, another buying agency.

The temptation to leave properties empty is enhanced not only by stubbornly low interest rates on traditional savings and investments, but also by relatively poor rental returns for those letting out units with high capital values. Knight Frank claims that gross rental yields in prime central London fell to 2.93 per cent in the second half of 2015, with reduced demand for units from the financial services sector, a key customer. In these circumstances, some investors rely on long-term capital appreciation without the hassle of letting out a property.

The practical effect of buy to leave is not restricted to the night-time phenomenon of blocks of flats with few lights on, however. “I was struck by how shabby Knightsbridge is looking with shops closing down. Now at night it’s a pretty dull place,” says Mark Parkinson.

Buy-to-leave purchasers prefer new-build units in managed blocks but for owner-occupiers in the same buildings, services can be impaired if most properties are empty. “It can really demotivate porters and other service providers if they’re sitting in what is essentially a deserted building all day,” says Jo Eccles of buying company Sourcing Property.

Not every part of the property industry is against buy to leave, however.

In the local consultation surrounding Islington’s anti-buy to leave planning policy — which insisted any new-build unit should not be left empty for more than three months — estate agency Savills registered its concerns “on behalf of a client”.

It said that a consequence of the new rule might be reduced contributions by developers towards more affordable housing. “Our key concerns centred around the ability of investors to secure development finance and for buyers to secure mortgages with such onerous obligations imposed (that is, the three-month vacancy measure),” a Savills spokesperson said. According to the estate agency, buy to leave is a sideshow to the main story: the lack of affordable housing.

Meanwhile, last summer the Canary Wharf Group, embarking on 3,200 new homes plus offices and community facilities in one of London’s two main financial centres, marketed one 345-unit block to “UK-based buyers first”. The group wanted to counter any criticism of allegedly excessive overseas ownership and to counter any portrayal of the scheme as having empty flats.

Those anticipating that buy to leave may have been stopped dead by prime central London’s stark housing slowdown after the late-2014 introduction of higher stamp duty for properties above £937,500 appear to have been proved wrong.

In the year to December 2015 prices in Knightsbridge fell 6.1 per cent, according to Knight Frank. In South Kensington they fell 3.7 per cent and in Chelsea 2.7 per cent.

Yet buy-to-leave purchasers appear more concerned by plummeting oil prices and falling Chinese growth, according to those who help them find London investment properties.

“Investors want a safe haven and real estate in London falls into that category,” says Caspar Harvard-Walls of buying consultancy Black Brick.

As if to prove the point, Sam McArdle, of The Buying Solution, says he has just assisted a Bahraini purchase a £2m home in Chelsea. The client will not be using it, as he prefers hotels during visits to London. “He’s merely seeking market stability — unlike in his home region,” says McArdle.

Is that an outrage given London’s housing shortage, or a logical investment? Perhaps it is both.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

One could point the obvious fact that the charitable response of the community helping the residents of Grenfell, is not actually their homelessness problem.

At best, the now homeless are being temporarily housed in communal facilities. This is not a long term solution.

Before the hundreds made homeless a few days ago, there were about 75,000 homeless in the UK and awaiting social housing.  

I think it's a combination of logistics of building enough homes, economics (micro and macro) and yes, politics.

Sorry did not see your post Zack

I understand your points and agree, but is it about building more homes? The Government does not need to build anymore, when they could simple purchase them.

This "housing surplus" has nearly doubled from 800,000 spare homes in 1996 to 1.4million homes at any one time in 2014. These “empty homes” are typically second homes, or vacant properties which are either left empty or are awaiting for tenants or home owners to move in.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/03/number-empty-homes-hits-highest-rate-20-years-calling-question/

Purchasing them is a good idea. They can implement a compulsory order. Market prices in Kensington are down, so it's a good time to spend tax payer money.

I suppose un-gentrification of parts of Kensington won't be popular with the local rich people but i don't care about that.

I thought most councils insisted on housing for low income when applying for planning permission for big developememts. That doesn't seem to be the case in Kensington. But this should be compulsory, so even those on low income can benefit from better building and fire regulations.

Thorin wrote:I am really happy to see that people have already raised 2 million for those who have lost their homes to the fire by the Grenfell crowding campaign and countless other things are being done to help raise more money. I applaud all this. You then see a call by Corbyn to have homes requisition for those who have lost their homes. I agree that any empty homes should have owners open their their properties, until a time that suitable accommodation can be found.

What I do not understand, is that we have 250,000 homeless in this country and yet we do not see the same to help them by the general public. Where is the call to get them off the streets and into houses?
 
Why does it sadly take for people to act only after such a tragic loss of life?

Why are we not doing this daily to help ensure nobody is homeless. I do not want to take anything away from the great massive support being done after this tragedy, but why can this not be done to end homelessness also in this country?

Sorry didge but that is bollocks!!!


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/25/number-of-rough-sleepers-in-england-rises-for-sixth-successive-year


You said 250000 homeless... on the streets...?

sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I don't know a great deal about that part pf London, but I would imagine that many of those "empty" properties are owned by people from overseas who together with members of their families use them when visiting the UK for either work or pleasure.

It would seem pretty obvious to me that if they had bought them and did not intend to use them they would have let them out, even on a short term basis, not only to gain an income to pay for the various charges and taxes but also to ensure that they were looked after properly. They must, after all, represent a substantial investment.

It's Corbyn's use of the word "seize" that I find interesting. "Property is theft," didn't someone once say?

Then I suggest you do some reading:

https://www.ft.com/content/6954f798-cb2c-11e5-a8ef-ea66e967dd44

The impact of ‘buy to leave’ on prime London’s housing market

Should we be morally outraged by the phenomenon called “buy to leave” or should we dismiss it as a tiny if inevitable consequence of a resilient housing market?

Politicians and estate agents use the term for properties bought as assets, intentionally and permanently left unoccupied until they appreciate and are sold at some later date.

With prime London housing prices rising 73 per cent from March 2009 to November 2014, according to Knight Frank, the existence of buy to leave is perhaps unsurprising.

Yet while the capital’s Evening Standard newspaper claims buy to leave is so prolific it has created “ghost towns of the super-rich”, no one knows for sure how big the problem is, and in the absence of any central database the authorities resort to educated guesswork.

Kensington and Chelsea’s Conservative council, for example, has used 2011 Census data to find 9,169 flats and houses classified as vacant — 10.5 per cent of the borough’s total housing stock. The same authority’s 2012 council tax returns show 10,564 empty homes, which is 12.1 per cent of the stock. Some “empties” may be second homes of people living chiefly out of London or out of the UK; some, however, will be intentionally vacant assets.

Labour-run Islington, a north London borough, has adopted a Supplementary Planning Document requiring all new homes built within its boundaries to be regularly occupied in an attempt to prevent buy to leave.

“New homes have to, at the very least, be lived in. I think that’s a pretty reasonable thing to ask,” says James Murray, the council’s housing spokesman.

One byproduct of this debate is the agreement between political opponents that buy to leave is in some way damaging. Conservative Zac Goldsmith and Labour’s Sadiq Khan — the two leading candidates in May’s election for Mayor of London — have both called for the curbing of buy to leave, with Khan specifying that he would use planning powers to restrict it.

Many property industry players appear to agree that it has had a detrimental effect.

“Buy to leave is endemic in prime central London and the new-build sector. [It is] a grave issue in a city where many people are looking for somewhere to live,” says Guy Meacock of Prime Purchase, the buying arm of Savills.

“The more international an area, the more common it is. There’s an arc from Knightsbridge through Belgravia, Mayfair and up as far as St John’s Wood and Hampstead where this has been especially popular,” says Roarie Scarisbrick of Property Vision, a buying agency.



“One Hyde Park must be the most high profile. It’s only 30 per cent occupied at any one time and some of the apartments have never been occupied,” says Mark Parkinson of Middleton Advisors, another buying agency.

The temptation to leave properties empty is enhanced not only by stubbornly low interest rates on traditional savings and investments, but also by relatively poor rental returns for those letting out units with high capital values. Knight Frank claims that gross rental yields in prime central London fell to 2.93 per cent in the second half of 2015, with reduced demand for units from the financial services sector, a key customer. In these circumstances, some investors rely on long-term capital appreciation without the hassle of letting out a property.

The practical effect of buy to leave is not restricted to the night-time phenomenon of blocks of flats with few lights on, however. “I was struck by how shabby Knightsbridge is looking with shops closing down. Now at night it’s a pretty dull place,” says Mark Parkinson.

Buy-to-leave purchasers prefer new-build units in managed blocks but for owner-occupiers in the same buildings, services can be impaired if most properties are empty. “It can really demotivate porters and other service providers if they’re sitting in what is essentially a deserted building all day,” says Jo Eccles of buying company Sourcing Property.

Not every part of the property industry is against buy to leave, however.

In the local consultation surrounding Islington’s anti-buy to leave planning policy — which insisted any new-build unit should not be left empty for more than three months — estate agency Savills registered its concerns “on behalf of a client”.

It said that a consequence of the new rule might be reduced contributions by developers towards more affordable housing. “Our key concerns centred around the ability of investors to secure development finance and for buyers to secure mortgages with such onerous obligations imposed (that is, the three-month vacancy measure),” a Savills spokesperson said. According to the estate agency, buy to leave is a sideshow to the main story: the lack of affordable housing.

Meanwhile, last summer the Canary Wharf Group, embarking on 3,200 new homes plus offices and community facilities in one of London’s two main financial centres, marketed one 345-unit block to “UK-based buyers first”. The group wanted to counter any criticism of allegedly excessive overseas ownership and to counter any portrayal of the scheme as having empty flats.

Those anticipating that buy to leave may have been stopped dead by prime central London’s stark housing slowdown after the late-2014 introduction of higher stamp duty for properties above £937,500 appear to have been proved wrong.

In the year to December 2015 prices in Knightsbridge fell 6.1 per cent, according to Knight Frank. In South Kensington they fell 3.7 per cent and in Chelsea 2.7 per cent.

Yet buy-to-leave purchasers appear more concerned by plummeting oil prices and falling Chinese growth, according to those who help them find London investment properties.

“Investors want a safe haven and real estate in London falls into that category,” says Caspar Harvard-Walls of buying consultancy Black Brick.

As if to prove the point, Sam McArdle, of The Buying Solution, says he has just assisted a Bahraini purchase a £2m home in Chelsea. The client will not be using it, as he prefers hotels during visits to London. “He’s merely seeking market stability — unlike in his home region,” says McArdle.

Is that an outrage given London’s housing shortage, or a logical investment? Perhaps it is both.

What were the figures for 2010...?

2009...?

2008...?

How about from the start of the 1997 labour govt...?