Is Corbyn right about "requisitioning" property from the rich?

[Ryika]

In light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, Comrade Jeremy Corbyn has stated the following:

The ward where this fire took place is, I think the poorest ward in the whole country.

And properties must be found, requisitioned if necessary, in order to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally.

It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and luxury flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and the poor look for somewhere to live.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40285994

People seem to generally agree that, for obvious reasons, just appropriating their flats would be highly illegal, and when asked about the legality, a spokesman of Corbyn responded with:

"We would find a way to do this if necessary - we are looking into the ways in which it could be done depending on circumstances."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40303142

That same article also goes into some detail about how it could be made legal to make rich people give up their (unused) property in such a case, or how one could get around the legality, so let's assume for the sake of the argument that it's possible to do it in some way that is entirely legal - is it okay? And is it ethical?

I think that's a pretty interesting topic, because on the one hand, it would offer immediate help for the people who are now in need of a new home, without too many immediate problems for the people who own those properties (they're not being used anyway after all), but on the other hand, the precedent that it sets for the rich seems to be rather questionable.

Your thoughts?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I'm absolutely for it, and I'm absolutely for the precedent it sets. There's not justification for a society to allow people to own vacant residental buildings as long as there is one homeless person in the city.

 

[Senethro]

To me this feels like the sort of power you only want to give a government the habit of using under some kind of emergency. Feels a bit close to saying that the government can do what it wants when it wants, instead of acting through its own framework of laws.

 

[Commodore]

I'm absolutely against such a proposal. History has shown that when you give any government the ability to seize property, they will always, always, always abuse it. Based on that, the government's ability to seize property should always be as limited as possible no matter how noble the stated purpose of the property seizure may be.

 

[Kozmos]

Yeah, I'm very left of centre, but this is absolutely bonkers. I mean government does eminent domain all the time, but this would be a bad precedent I think. Also to echo Commodore's concern, look at how asset seizure laws in the drug wars were used and abused against ordinary citizens.

 

[Ryika]

I'm absolutely for it, and I'm absolutely for the precedent it sets. There's not justification for a society to allow people to own vacant residental buildings as long as there is one homeless person in the city.

I think it's worth noting that this is mostly about "local" (temporary?) resettlement, it's not a choice between being being able to live in these properties and being homeless. As far as I understand it, the people will have a secure place to stay either way, it's just that, at least in the mind of Corbyn, this is the easiest and most immediate option - there are people in that area who have just lost their homes and the flats are there and unused anyway, so why not seize them?

 

[civver_764]

It seems like the basic idea behind this is that "inequality is not acceptable". I would disagree with that. Inequality is not only necessary, it is inevitable. We have to accept inequality as a society if we're going to be honest with ourselves.

It seems like they almost want to blame rich people for the fact that the fire happened. This sort of blame-shifting is not going to make anyone happier. We all know intuitively that jealousy is not virtuous and leads to misery, so we should not accept it on a societal level either. We can observe the failed communist states of the 20th century as proof of this.

You're right that this would immediately benefit many underprivileged people, but at what cost? This is a dangerous precedent to set, and gives the government a lot of power. It's also not clear who this applies to. If this applies to businesses as well then it seems clear that it would hurt the economic incentives for businesses to expand.

We should have compassion for the victims of this fire, but jealousy towards the rich and giving the government more power is not the answer.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't this about the immediate aftermath (people in that burned tower losing their house)?

Remember that the tower was public housing, ie those who lost their place are homeless now. I think it would make sense for a temporary 'we (the state) rent your property at a symbolic (not full worth) price for x weeks' kind of thing. Moreover the govs already can and do evict you if they want to build a road/project where your house is, so this isn't very different, and is only temporary as well, unlike eviction/taking your house for whatever token price forever.

 

[Farm Boy]

What, somebody with a lot of cash is threatened with state seizure of their stuff for public use/private use the public supports? Like government/court battles over the expansion of rail lines? Highway widening? Interstate bypasses? Residential subdivisions? Schoolyard expansions?

I guess it's nice to get people talking about state seizure, but this isn't a slippery slope, it's something that happens all the time already. At least in the US, I guess I don't know if this is terribly unusual in the UK. Something something quartering troops?

 

[Senethro]

I know it can happen at local government level in the UK. At a previous place of work we surveyed a derelict building on a small towns highstreet that the previous owners had refused to make safe and had then gone through several years in the courts to be subject to a compulsory purchase order. Requires approval by a national government level minister though.

 

[Hrothbern]

What, somebody with a lot of cash is threatened with state seizure of their stuff for public use/private use the public supports? Like government/court battles over the expansion of rail lines? Highway widening? Interstate bypasses? Residential subdivisions? Schoolyard expansions?

I guess it's nice to get people talking about state seizure, but this isn't a slippery slope, it's something that happens all the time already. At least in the US, I guess I don't know if this is terribly unusual in the UK. Something something quartering troops?

The chance that you will experience a state seizure as you describe in your own life is close to zero.
The chance that you see news about it,is very high for the same reason.
We are all against it
certainly in our own backyard.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yar, that seems more familiar, Sen. I don't think we require that high a level of oversight though. The city just bulldozed the best Mediterranean joint in town, been there over 10 years, while the owner stood there in tears. Place next to his was run down so they jacked it all in order to favor apartments and parking.

The chance that you will experience a state seizure as you describe in your own life is close to zero.
The chance that you see news about it,is very high for the same reason.
We are all against it
certainly in our own backyard.

Eh, my family farms and people live near us. It's not particularly unlikely. If the village decides it wants the connecting streets finished(they dead end into our acreage in several spots) they'll get it. Our village, not the nearby city, smashed one of our senior citizen's homes to add a turn lane to the highway that runs through(actually, that was probably IL state, not the village, it's thier highway). She didn't live particularly long in assisted care. Not kidding, this stuff happens all. the. time. (US centric again)

 

[Hrothbern]

Yar, that seems more familiar, Sen. I don't think we require that high a level of oversight though. The city just bulldozed the best Mediterranean joint in town, been there over 10 years, while the owner stood there in tears. Place next to his was run down so they jacked it all in order to favor apartments and parking.



Eh, my family farms and people live near us. It's not particularly unlikely. If the village decides it wants the connecting streets finished(they dead end into our acreage in several spots) they'll get it. Our village, not the nearby city, smashed one of our senior citizen's homes to add a turn lane to the highway that runs through(actually, that was probably IL state, not the village, it's thier highway). She didn't live particularly long in assisted care. Not kidding, this stuff happens all. the. time. (US centric again)

My bias is from my country

In the Netherlands it happens not much.
What happens must be part of a plan that has to be made public long time before planning construction.
And if you object, you can go up to the surpreme court.
When it still happens it pays well.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah ok! My background looks more like this stuff. But not usually such a grand project, generally more piecemeal. Weird, not sure if that link works. It worked once for me, but I'm not going to subscribe to the Rockford Register Star.

I'd guess finding emergency housing after a calamity is something we generally wouldn't bother doing with eminent domain, but would probably be as good to a better use than we usually get out of it.

 

[luiz]

Of course it's justified. History has shown how this sort of measure works wonderfully, is efficient from an economic POV and is never abused by governments.

If you doubt me, just look at Venezuela, which adopted very similar measures to this, and even expanded on them. Is Venezuela not paradise on earth? It's no wonder that Corbyn is a fanatical admirer of the late Hugo Chavez and his glorious revolution. Great minds think alike.

Courage, comrade! Forwards! Hasta la victoria siempre!

 

[civvver]

If the people are so poor and on government handouts already why not just relocate them outside the city where property is cheaper, build housing out there?

 

[Hrothbern]

Ah ok! My background looks more like this stuff. But not usually such a grand project, generally more piecemeal. Weird, not sure if that link works. It worked once for me, but I'm not going to subscribe to the Rockford Register Star.

I'd guess finding emergency housing after a calamity is something we generally wouldn't bother doing with eminent domain, but would probably be as good to a better use than we usually get out of it.

Your link works

Must say that we had also a bit smaller railway extension that caused a lot a state seizure, mostly just land. But that one was not that flexible. Too much a governmental political prestige project to connect Rotterdam Harbor directly with the German Ruhr valley. Our part was finished more than 10 years, Germany still to finish her part.....

 

[Arwon]

With paid compensation, as one assumes is intended here, this literally already happens pretty constantly. Including in London where it's called compulsory purchase.

It just happens for profit or infrastructure reasons, and is targeted at poor people, instead of targeting rich people for housing the homeless, which I guess makes it not communist?

 

[EnglishEdward]

It seems like the basic idea behind this is that "inequality is not acceptable".

I disagree, I think that it is about unused resources (empty housing stock), rather than about inequality.

And the powerful and rich use eminent domain arguments to force through the eviction of the ordinaries to build luxury flats all the time.

But they are hypocritical and want to be the only people to benefit from eminent domain.

 

[Kyriakos]

Of course it's justified. History has shown how this sort of measure works wonderfully, is efficient from an economic POV and is never abused by governments.

If you doubt me, just look at Venezuela, which adopted very similar measures to this, and even expanded on them. Is Venezuela not paradise on earth? It's no wonder that Corbyn is a fanatical admirer of the late Hugo Chavez and his glorious revolution. Great minds think alike.

Courage, comrade! Forwards! Hasta la victoria siempre!

Wow, a sighting of Luiz in the Corbyn PM threads (albeit not in the major one...). Must feel bad, Luiz, that your most hated Corbyn is set to be prime minister How can it be? Wasn't he just not popular at all other that with some fringe far-leftists?