Rehousing issue for Grenfell Towers survivors

Chilling, Jane10? We are talking about 158 families, not the whole of London.
It can't be beyond the wit of Kensington and Chelsea to discuss it with a few absentee Russian or Qatari wealthy men.
They must know who is paying the rates for every empty house or mansion.

Any housing empty during the war was requisitioned to house people who had been bombed out. There were houses in this category in the road in which I lived - the landlord still collected rent and after the war when more council housing was built the people were rehoused in the new houses and the landlords took back possession of their houses. Something similar could be done now - some of the people in need of housing are afraid that if they accept housing which is in another place they will no longer be eligible for rehousing back in the area. It cannot be too difficult to give these people the assurance they will be rehoused nearby ASAP.

Again, if they are landlords they must be renting out their properties?

I read that a number of Lawyers with specialism in Housing had offered to work at no cost for survivors of Grenfell. They would know whether it's possible to prepare a document that would ensure tenants who accept say private rented with a twelve month guarantee their rent will be paid, are also guaranteed social housing to replace that they lost. The private rent would continue to be paid beyond the twelve month period of social housing isn't found by the time the twelve months have passed.

It's not difficult to understand the anxiety felt by tenants who refuse to accept unsuitAble offers that they will be deemed intentionally homeless. That's another issue that shouldn't be beyond the Council to waive for the survivors. I hope some kind of legally binding contract on these issues can be reached with the help of the Council legal dept and lawyers acting for survivors.

This tragedy has highlighted the need for the sale of social housing to end and for more to be built.

That brings to mind the requisitioning of homes by 'the people' in the aftermath of the Russian revolution. Chilling.

'More than anything else, this is a moral question. It is not a question about state coercion. In both cases the state is exercising its power using the threat of violence. Either the state will do this by arresting any homeless person who tries to occupy the luxury Kensington properties – many of which which have sat empty for 15 years – or by denying the property rights of the former owners, through the courts if necessary.

Unsurprisingly, Theresa May has chosen to prioritise the rights of absentee landlords over the rights of the victims of the Grenfell tragedy. Why is this the case? It’s quite simple: the victims of the Grenfell tragedy are mainly poor, working class Londoners. The owners of the Kensington properties are the world’s rich and powerful. The balance of power in British society lies with the latter, and successive governments have set the rules around property rights accordingly. As Adam Smith, often regarded as the forefather of liberal economic thought, wrote 240 years ago:

“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all”.

Maybe – just maybe – it’s time to change that.'

Reading the above link headline, not the link, if the owners of the properties are absentee landlords then they must be renting their properties else it would read owners not landlord surely?

www.opendemocracy.net/uk/laurie-macfarlane/theresa-may-has-prioritised-rights-of-absentee-landlords-over-grenfell-victims

www.24housing.co.uk/opinion/fixing-our-broken-housing-hearts/

I can't even imagine some of them have the capacity to make a decision at this point.

This is a disaster and it needs a solution asap.

However, it is only during war-time that people's houses have been requisitioned and I don't think that is the answer.

A reasonable compromise is in order as gillybob says, and it must be fit for purpose, ie not cramming a family of five into a one-bedroomed flat or re-locating people too far away from their original homes. That is unless they do not mind that - some people may have family in other locations and could be agreeable to moving nearer to them if work permits that.

Perhaps when Parliament is in recess MPs' second homes in the capital could be used as a temporary measure until something more suitable is found.

But we must bear in mind that you can't have what doesn't exist . If the perfect/ideal flat isn't available surely a reasonable compromise is in order. Of a good standard, obviously. before anyone jumps down my throat

Well you wont be shouted at by me Jane; a good post from you and good posts from Anniebach; nice to see.

Your opinion on the accommodation offered isn't relevant Jane10 if the people concerned don't want it (and there are many questions about some of it, including the terms and length of tenancy agreements) they have a perfect right to say so. I imagine they are feeling very stressed and just taking the opportunity to shout at someone, because the council and government have failed them.

The legalities of compulsory purchase would take forever. Also these 'mansions' would need to be converted into flats again extremely time consuming.
Just shouting at the people tasked with trying to find accommodation isn't helpful. The flats at Grenfell Tower weren't exactly palaces. I know they were people's homes and valued for that reason but some of the alternative accommodation on offer looks like a distinct improvement to me!
Obviously there are and will be exceptions and I expect to be shouted at on this thread!

Why is the council housing department just having people in to advise them, rather than them being taken over?
They haven't done their job properly up to now.

The practical thing is as Trisher says, to requisition houses that have been empty for over ten years, just accruing profit for their owners.
That can be done now, and I said so over a fortnight ago.
That's practical.

My husband was an architect. I know how long it takes to build houses. The houses are there, the land isn't. Neither is the will to house these people properly.

The local council has considerable reserves and would be able to acquire empty properties by Compulsory Purchase Orders. There are also other legal options that can be used for example up to 150% council tax could be charged. It isn't impossible if there is a will to do it. Of course this council isn't likely to use such powers.

I have no solution, the tenants want homes close to the tower, there are no empty council properties close to the tower. If a mile is too far , a two bedroomed flat for three too small , houses cannot be built in a week.

I care deeply for the tenants but me feeling deeply doesn't house them.

I am just discussing this without emotion because emotions , be they sympathy, anger, envy, does not build homes . It is possible to discuss things practically for some, there is no magic wand, the entire council could ge publicly hanged today, there would still be a housing shortage .

There could be a campaign to take empty properties from owners, change the law, take it to the house for a vote ? Don't expect the owners to fight back?

You have come up with nothing practical Jen

So what is your solution to now, then, Annie?

But that is the future Trisher , yes things must change but it doesn't solve the lack of housing today , saying what should have been done in the past or what must be done in the future does not solve the problems today

A number of houses in the area have been purchased purely for profit, left empty, they still increase in value. We need a policy that stops this happening, that recognises houses are places to live in and not just profit makers. Arguably the number of homeless in the area should be counted and appropriate measures taken to acquire the necessary accommodation, or to tax the empty properties to provide enough to build new properties.

Eleothan, no expert just common sense , if there were empty council properties close to the tower the council would have moved the homeless in them

i don't know the borough, are there empty homes for rent close to the tower?

The K&C have £374 million at its its disposal - much of which, it is said, has been accrued because it has cut public services to the bone. Are you really telling me that there is no way they can acquire some homes for rental in which they can house people whose lives have been turned upside down?

Anniebach How is that you are such an expert on housing availability in London?