A divided society-what can be done?

Yes, trisher, lets just leave Russian oligarchs who have bought 10 mansions for £50 billion alone. Poor things, they need our sympathy.

Perhaps next on the list will be shoes , no one needs seven pairs of shoes, keep one pair give six to a shoe charity
Come on, anniebach - seven pairs of shoes are NOT ENOUGH!

I will go and do something useful now, mustn't spoil the thread


ps are there any homeless people in Russia?
Just a thought

According to the government's estimates, five million people are homeless in Russia (3.5% of the population), one million of whom are children and 50,000 of whom live in Moscow Figures from 2014
People are living in sewers to try to keep warm.

Perhaps if the oligarchs sell their London mansions they could spend the money providing social housing in their own country.

I remember that gillybob

The rest of the world tries to stop homes being left empty. Why can't we?

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/02/how-the-world-is-tackling-issue-of-empty-homes

Oh, I forgot, we like being a divided society.

"Higher rates of tax for owners and buyers seem to be the preferred choice. In Vancouver, where an estimated 20,000 properties were lying empty all or much of the year, a new tax on empty homes was introduced at the start of this year. The city is now charging 1% of the value of any property left empty for at least six months a year. Owners must declare that this is the case, or face fines of up to $10,000 a day if they do not and are found out. On a property worth £500,000 the annual bill is £5,000 and as the property rises in value, so does the penalty for leaving it unused.

In the days running up to the first taxes kicking in, six months into the year, local media reported that homeowners were caught in a “scramble to rent”, or considering selling up to avoid the tax. The response suggests that the threat of taxation was having the desired effect."

It worked in Vancouver.

"Another measure introduced in cities across the world has been an extra tax for overseas buyers – arguably those most likely to be speculators. Most have been targeted at cooling house price inflation, but may have also dampened people’s enthusiasm to buy somewhere they don’t intend to live in."

For gillybob who believes there are no homeless in Newcastle (although what she thinks all the Big Issue sellers and the blokes in sleeping bags do at night I've no idea)
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/mar/08/homelessness-map-england
We have a lower percentage than most places-but they are there.

We had a friend who was trying to sell a property they had renovated and lived in for several years, but they had moved to another one which they were living in and renovating.

Now - he did not want to rent it out because it was beautifully refurbished and on the market, therefore did not want tenants, however good they may have been.
It was on the market for quite a long time - should he have to pay fines? He had to pay council tax on both properties as it was.

OFFS this is not about properties that anyone has lived in, intends to live in, is trying to sell, or rent out but purely about properties bought,never occupied, never intended to be occupied and which are purely investments relying on property value increases.
And he would have got a substantial discount on his council tax Jalima1108 up to 100% for 6 months
There's also a discount for second homes- up to 50%-at the council's discretion. Now nobody can tell me that's acceptable

It didn't 'work' in Vancouver at all durhamjen. It's just bad journalism from the Guardian. Click through and read the article they're linking to and selectively quoting.

"It's going to bring more rental properties onto the market but, on the affordable aspect, I think we're going to see the properties being more on the higher end side,"

The previously vacant properties Fazli has seen go up for rent are ones with owners who could afford to keep them empty for the majority of the year.

"We're looking at some pretty amazing properties in Coal Harbour, some luxury homes," he said.

"I don't think it's going to create more affordable housing."

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/property-owners-panic-as-vacancy-tax-takes-effect-1.4190576

No, he had a real fight to get a reduction on the council tax, eventually got it to 50%.
How will you discriminate between the owners of properties which someone may intend to live in, may sell, may rent out and one which it is never intended to occupy? Anyone could say that they are still 'renovating', 'intend to sell', 'may rent out' etc.

We need more social housing and all the other arguments are getting away from that fact.

As is saying we shouldn't take houses from rich people.
A lack of historical perspective there. Rich people knocked down whole villages because they were spoiling the view.

The reason we haven't got more social housing is because since Thatcher started selling off council houses, the councils were not allowed to build replacements. They still are not, despite what May said in the election manifesto. They are allowed to sell large expensive ones.

Primrose - There's such a difference between homelessness and the frustration of not being able to save for a deposit when renting. Looking at the Shelter website, there are so many personal or structural causes of homelessness, I don't think simply putting people from the street into empty homes would solve anything.

You are absolutely right Primrose. People use the emotive 'homeless people' as though they've had a desperate struggle to find a home. Most haven't. Many cannot cope with the social responsibilities that come with renting, or even taking a bed in a hostel.

The rules cause them problems. Many cannot live side by side with others because of drug, alcohol, anti-social or mental health problems. There are so many reasons why people are on the street and it's very sad but advocates galore have tried to get a roof over the head of several of the homeless locally, and not one of them wanted the 'ties' and responsibilities that came with being a tenant and their anti-social behaviour and lack of care for boundaries and rules saw them leave their base or be evicted because of the trouble they caused. Some people do reject society and it's conventions. I cannot see that homelessness will ever be a way of life that is eradicated. We are not supposed to mention this, but it's what happens.

I would hope that we continue to have advocates who can intervene and help those on the streets, and that those who do need and long for a secure base are found one.

The building of hostels, community centres and social housing is much needed imo, not the vilification of those who buy property. Property owners strive and struggle too. Life isn't a piece of cake for those who work hard and budget, go without etc to try and secure a future for themselves and their children. Most are not greedy or wealthy.

ALL sectors of society need consideration and the thought of left wing social draconian measures to 'level it all out' (as if that is ever fair!) makes me cross.

Rich people ......Thatcher ....... [yawn]
Maybe all the people who bought their council houses should be the first to give their property back to the state. They could be paid exactly what they paid for it. Would that help durhamjen ?

Primrose, the deadline for renting out empty houses was only 1st July this year.
There hasn't been enough time for anything other than conjecture. The agent is someone who deals with middle eastern princes, not ordinary people.

Sounds a good idea, actually charging 1% of the value of the property for every six months it is left empty.

Lots of those properties in Kensington could be turned into flats for people in need of a home, once the oligarchs have sold up.

Sorry, Primrose, I can't tell you what I think of your post of 15;42.
I'd be kicked off GN.
I'll leave you to guess.

Trisher, I do agree with you that it seems iniquitous in this day and age to leave a property standing empty. There are those who can afford to do this and who look to benefit from the increasing value of bricks and mortar. It does seem wrong.

However, we go down a very dangerous road if we commandeer such properties and start telling people what they can and cannot invest in. If we are lucky enough to have disposable income we should be able to spend it as we see fit. I know the mega-wealthy see acquiring property as a bit of a game of monopoly.

It's a bit of a cleft stick.

The reason we haven't got more social housing is because since Thatcher started selling off council houses, the councils were not allowed to build replacements
Um, it is now 27 (*twenty seven*) years since Margaret Thatcher was in power.
It is 20 (*twenty*) years since Labour won an election and were in power for 13 (*thirteen*) years.

I didn't realise that Margaret Thatcher's policies were set in stone for 100 years.
Most of the people who would be first-time buyers, would-be social housing tenants were not born twenty seven years ago. Plenty of time for things to change I would have thought.

Actually trisher there are only a handful of people in Newcastle who are genuinely homeless and there are beds for them in various hostels but they choose not to take them . The police constantly warn people in Newcastle not to give to beggars as they are either known to have an address or else they have been brought in to beg . And I know that for a fact ! Over 95% of those taken to court have addresses too . In my town there is one ( yes one) genuinely homeless man . Various charities ( inc one I am very familiar with) have tried to help him but he refuses.

your dates and statistics are way out btw.

If a property is empty for more than a year it is usually a sign that no-one is living there. As I have said it would be easy enough to alter the planning laws, to apply taxes, to compulsory purchase properties that remained empty. After all if the government wants to build a railway, or the local authority a road, they can compulsorily purchase anyone's property. So it seems the real objection to this is that property might be used for its real purpose i.e for people to live in. Seems a bizarre situation to me. That anyone would support the rights of rich Russian oligarchs and middle eastern sheiks to own property purely for gain rather than use the houses for the purpose they were built for.

This is the trouble Durhamjen

"It worked in Vancouver" becomes "middle eastern princes" and "conjecture" so quickly.

I suspect the houses they own were built to flaunt wealth tbh trisher The ultra wealthy have rarely built a property simply as a functional place to live in.