They'll still be a fortune, well over a million each. You could probably install a sprinkler system in every tower block in Britain for less than these 68 flats are costing.
Selling to the government or the council? I'm wondering how they'll get maintained in a luxury state long term? Or will these tenants be moved to more 'appropriate' accommodation (whatever that is) at some point in the future and then the flats sold off at a profit. Not a bad plan really.
If they were using them temporarily and selling them on, then it makes sense, but the article says they're moving 68 families in there permanently.
Are all personal tragedies the same ? I don't like the way this issue has developed. I think I might cancel my house and contents insurance and just ring the Government in the event of a disaster.
Let's not forget that these flats won't be furnished with mink throws and brass telescopes like in the pictures. At the end of the day it's just a building like any other and the real value is in the location and the finish. No gold taps or Italian marble in these, I reckon. If the government got 68 of the buggers for £10m then it seems like a fairly sensible long term investment. Anyone paying up to £8m for a flat wants their head checking anyway.
I thought there were literally thousands of foreign owned flats in London that were not occupied by their owners. These owners are supposed to be speculating on the current property housing boom. ? The government should be commandeering them from said owners on a temporary basis, charging the displaced families from the recent tragedy a nominal rent until the government /councils have implemented a more permanent solution.
Why should owners not receive a fair rent? They're allowed to speculate on property. My brother in law has been in a hotel paid for by his insurance company cos his house is uninhabitable. They wouldn't pay for a rental property. He's been there three months.
But you could give the absentee owners a break on the property taxes they pay to give a roof over peoples heads. I didn't suggest expropriation.
Many of those flats are empty, with no rental income being generated. Do you have any sensible temporary solutions for this tragic situation then ?
How do you know how many flats are empty? How do you decide if someone doesn't use it regularly enough to retain use of it? Do you seriously believe there are thousands of multi-million pound properties that are never used by anyone?
They aren't set up for rental. There'll be a whole host of regulations if they become rental properties. Mortgages would have to be changed also.
This 3 year old article, one of hundreds published in the UK press in the last 10 years, is the tip of the iceberg on the "unoccupied property" situation. London is particularly prone to this phenomenon as a result of "foreign" ownership. The recent disaster in London made approx 150 flats uninhabitable. What's your sensible temporary solution ? High rise apartment buildings, owned by foreign investors, would have a significant number of unoccupied units. The press have been bleating about that issue for years. It's the same in many capital cities world-wide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28349374
That's an issue with people/developers/councils (ironically, mainly councils) holding properties pending development, or deliberately leaving them to fail into disrepair, so they can demolish them to use the site for something new. They're not habitable homes, they're useless for people who need rehousing now, where's all these luxury empty flats that are ready to move into?
Where's your "sensible" solution to this immediate tragedy of displaced, homeless families ? Where did I mention "luxury flats" ?
