Twitter | Search | |
Daniel Sugarman
Here follows a quick thread on the proposal that some of the empty homes in Kensington should be seized to house the homeless from the fire
Reply Retweet Like More
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
(1) This idea is catnip to some people. It sounds so good. "How can any1 decent oppose the rehousing of those affected? The houses r empty!"
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
2) To the people who say it's against the law, others bring up the concept of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs), which are used by councils
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
3) Except that these are among the most expensive properties in Britain. Even at CPO rates, we're talking hundreds of millions of pounds
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
4) Oh, & owners (wherever they are) must be notified, & there's a notice period (by law) of a few weeks in which they can make objections
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
5) That's the law. You can talk about changing that law, sure. But in the meantime, that's the law.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
6) "But what about all the cases where poor people are taken advantage of by councils via CPO b/c they don't have access to legal counsel?"
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
7) Yes, that is DESPICABLE. But that's the point. You're talking about taking houses from people who have very, very good lawyers
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
8) And when all this has died down, & Corbyn, Lammy, Harman etc go away, the lawyers are still there. And they'll sue the council. And win
Reply Retweet Like
Uncivil Still Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
You'd need some legal step in the first place, to found CPOs, like a private bill or one of those transport orders - the name escapes.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
9) The council will lose millions in civil suits, and who will suffer then? Not the rich, but the poor who need council services desperately
Reply Retweet Like
Laura Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
In this country that proposal would simply be unconstitutional. CPOs only used in very limited circumstances with consent of owners.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
10) It would cost the council a million times less to house all those affected in a Hotel & pay for it, than it would to take those houses
Reply Retweet Like
Lord Practicus Snotts KGB VD STD IUD Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
Im sure if property was lived in by low income owners theyd be no problem in shifting them for property developers! Rich own the law!
Reply Retweet Like
Laura Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
Plus it would add hugely to the already high cost of housing provision for very destitute people, which I suspect they were already
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
11) There's no way Corbyn et al don't know all this. Notice, they aren't suggesting brand new legislation to change these laws
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
12) No, they're just suggesting that these houses be seized NOW, and damn the consequences
Reply Retweet Like
Jacques Corby-Tuech Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
S'all about the empty populist gestures.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel Sugarman Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
13) And given that the government has already committed to rehousing all those affected by the fire, what we actually have is Corbyn et al
Reply Retweet Like
Jacques Corby-Tuech Jun 16
Replying to @Daniel_Sugarman
Body count will be hitting triple figures in the very near future. They haven't actually started recovering bodies yet from the tower. :/
Reply Retweet Like