The scandal of empty homes when others are homeless

Churches in Portsmouth opened their doors to rough sleepers in January and February this year. Different churches were open on different days of the week.

"The idea is that each church opens its doors on a different day of the week. So volunteers from one church would feed and host homeless people overnight on a Monday, another church would open on a Tuesday and so on."

So it looks like some churches are willing to show some Christian compassion.

Grannypauline, I am afraid you sound more left wing than Corbyn. I do not agree everything should be taken back into public control. We live in a democracy where private ownership flourishes.

While I think your idea about churches is a good one, Bobdoesit, the churches that are unused for most of the time are usually in rural areas, where there are less homeless people than in towns and cities.

Nobody is suggesting than houses should not be built for profit, but building houses and not letting anybody live in them seems rather morally reprehensible.

And being baptised , marrying, in church is not a privilege, available to all

Bobdoesit, it isn’t a solution. Why not make every who parks their car in a garage give up their garage, everyone with a conservatory take in people to sleep for the night? How many have spare bedrooms, let the homeless sleep there ?

So easy to say give over Churches,

Correction - around 54% of shareholders in UK businesses are foreign. Just under half is owned by Americans, making them the majority foreign holders..

Anniebach, I am well aware of the cost of heating churches as are most sensible people. I also understand how much a funeral services means to those of us left behind when a beloved member of our family or a friend dies.

None of that, however, helps the plight of the men and women sleeping outside. It’s not an ideal solution and may not be a solution at all, but we can no longer go around closing our eyes to the plight of so many people.

I for one am ashamed to walk through our towns and cities and witness the sight of someone's son, daughter, mother or father ‘living’ on the street.

Churches are there for everyone - not just those of us privileged enough to be baptised, married or buried in one.

Regarding shareholders - it is possible that we own shares indirectly through pensions, savings etc. I don't think we have much control over that. But as private people we are not majorly involved.

I haven't been able to find stats for the building or food sectors individually, but the Office for National Statistics states that the major investors in the UK businesses are foreign. Around 55% are Americans - not of course ordinary Americans.

Individuals in the UK own around 12% of shares. So....who are we afraid of upsetting through nationalising major businesses and producing the things we need in an efficient way without harming the environment? Of course we would compensate those who needed support but the rest can go hang (not literally of course!)

Bobdoesit, do you know what it costs to heat a church ?

Funeral services mean much to the bereaved who are ‘the living ‘, Christians for whom baptisms are important are ‘the living’ .

Putting up camp beds at night ? Ever heard of squatters rights?

GrannyPauline - well said! But there doesn’t seem to be the political will to make anything like this happen. It’s all tinkering round the edges. I despair.

Anniebach Did I mention closing churches? No of course not. I said why couldn't parts of churches be made available to the homeless. If that idea is not feasible then how about setting up camp beds in churches at night. If every church in every village and town helped there would be no need for anyone to sleep in the open during the winter months. To suggest that weddings and baptisms are more important than people is ridiculous. As for funerals – don’t we need to look after the living before the dead?

When people complain about big business, builders or whatever they don't realise they are probably shareholders of such companies. If you have a savings account, insurance or whatever, you almost certainly are gaining from shares in large companies.

50 years ago we were told we had no chance of being offered social housing. We had to have been on the list for many years and have 3 children before we would have enough 'points' to qualify. I worked with someone who was divorced and in SH because her divorce had been a 'problem'. Despite now having a good job there was no way she was going to give up her home because it was so cheap.

Someone upthread said a 1 bedroom flat in London was over £300,000 but I saw a 2 bedroom one online yesterday for £215,000. I think it depends on where you choose to live. I don't think it was a bad area just south of the river.

Well the "too many people" aren't going to go away.
So, yes, the problem is housing us all.

Urban renewal has had much success in the US. Old neighborhoods fit for demolition or otherwise deteriorated are instead 'refurbished'. Would be buyers are screened by the municipality or selected by lottery. Homes are sold for a nominal fee and then fixed up and maintained by the new homeowner. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

It seems to be acceptable on this site to suggest foreign nationals should be prevented from buying property. I know if I went to live abroad permanently I would prefer to buy otherwise I wouldn't be able to make the place feel like my own but the issue of foreign nationals renting privately or living in council properties in this country seems to have been skipped over.

My own council is now saying ( rightly so ) that you have to have a ten year connection to the area to get on the council house waiting list, more stringent rules are in place if the area is very rural. The problem in this country is not that there is not enough housing, it is that they are too many people.

craftycat
Would your suggestion mean that homeless people are accommodated in amazing luxury properties beyond the means and dreams of us who pay our way?

I believe that the homeless were given the same chances as us all and i think they wasted time. They didn't use those chances.

Lots of people were given an appalling start in life but didn't consider going further downhill as an adult.

We all make a success or a failure of our lives and when misfortune calls we soldier on.

The homeless people who came to be on the strrets because of mental health problems have fallen through the net. Their problems are deeper than lacking a roof over their head and they should be offered help.

I don't think many know the full extent of this problem.
I worked with a (very well off!) Thai man who moved round various luxury properties belonging to friends in Central London for years. He had houses & apartments of his own he rented out but all the places he stayed in were permanently empty having been bought as investments. I saw photos of these places & they were amazing. He paid no rent. I estimate in the years we worked together he went through at least 40 different properties
. He saw nothing wrong with this as it was an easy way of making money for his friends.
I thought after Grenfell that if they just took over some of the empty properties in London all those poor people could have been housed immediately. It can't be that hard to pass a bill to stop properties sitting empty just waiting for inflation to make it profitable for these very rich foreign buyers to make even more money. It's a disgrace.

A property we purchased had been empty for many years and the week we purchased it a letter from the council arrived at the property saying it was to be subject to compulsory purchase so councils do have the power to do so. Before our purchase the property had its letter box boarded up so we do not know whether other correspondence had been sent. In our case a simple phone call stopped the process but the powers do exist and are used in some circumstances. This was a house on an ordinary residential street.

I definitely didn't mention churches!

The food situation is a slightly different thing. Food banks are also a national disgrace in a wealthy country.

Huge multinationals are buying up land - and some of it for their kind of intensive farming. They are pushing small farmers out of business, because that's what multinationals have to do. The food they cultivate is grown with pesticides, antibiotics (for meat) and artificial fertilisers - thus contaminating the land.

There is some evidence that these products are also less nutritious.

And for the multinationals their shareholders are their priority not consumers or the environment. So, yes, they most likely do need to be nationalised too.

But there is no need to impact on the corner shops (already closing through competition from the superstores). They need support not threats!

Why should building companies be taken into public control, should all food shops be taken into public control because some for different reasons cannot afford to buy food, why should churches be closed to those who wish to worship, get married, baptised, have a funeral service ?

The housing crisis is a national disgrace – we are the 5th wealthiest country in the world yet more than 1 million families are on council waiting lists. Many of these are effectively homeless or lack adequate housing. For example 1 in 5 children live in a cold, damp, house - compromising their immune systems and leading to ill health (Shelter).

Those living on the streets include ex-servicemen and women, people losing jobs, etc, and their average age at death is 43 compared with UK life expectancy of 80 plus years.

It is estimated that we need 4 million new homes to cope with the shortfall (Independent).

We have the resources to do something about this: councils have 33 thousand hectares of empty brownfield sites – sufficient for 1.4m homes; and the big 4 property developers have enough cash reserves to build those 1.4m homes. Nationally 400 thousand sites have planning permission for housing but no start has yet been, and almost a quarter of a million homes have been vacant for more than 6 months. Using these resources would halve the problem.

The present government promises 1 million new homes will be built by 2020. Their annual target of 300,000 to achieve this has never been met. The last year that 300,000 new homes were built was 1969! Since then new builds completed have gradually fallen to below 200 thousand (BBC). Also the government target mentions "sustainable" new homes not "affordable ". Who is to say they will be affordable (even under the current description of affordable as 80% of market values).

There is an overwhelming need for a strategy to turn unused resources of land and capital into real, and really affordable, homes (of high quality – no more relaxation of standards). If the big building companies refuse to do this then they should be taken into public control and an action plan, to provide decent homes for all, implemented.

Why not utilise all the churches around the country. There is one service a month in our village the rest of the time the place is empty, why can’t they find space for a few homeless people. I understand about possible damage/theft but if they don’t want to do that what about utilising the vicarage. Our vicar and his wife live in a massive great place that must have at least eight bedrooms, while people sleep in shop doorways. I see nothing Christian in that and I’m a Christian.

My son on a recent visit to London was disgusted at the number of empty million pound flats owned by foreigners which were never occupied and his son has just had to pay £360,000 for a small one bedroom flat.

As our high st shops become empty and abandoned, there has been talk of turning them into housing. What a good idea. Our high streets are beginning to look very sad and while we are so desperate for homes, it seems a good idea.

I was under the impression that any new housing development that was built over the last few years had to have 10 per cent of it for a mix of affordable or social housing, plus a community facility ie : GPs surgery : community centre : citizens advice bureau etc. before they can be granted planning permission. This is the case in the area I live. Also some councils do employ specific staff to try and find owners of properties that have been left empty for a long time, so that they may try to negotiate with the owner a repair and rent programme to ease the housing shortage.
In the cityI live in now ( not London) which was the subject of a TV documentary not many years ago, at least two thirds of people on the waiting list were told that it would be virtually impossible for them to be housed in social housing.
I worked in social housing for years before I retired and someone in my family does now, so I try and keep abreast with current ideas on housing and all aspects of it. I feel sorry for anyone now trying to get a property via social housing.