Quote Originally Posted by Peter McGurk View Post
They shouldn't. But neither should property ownership include the responsibility to nanny society.
...

Property owners do not let properties fall into disrepair willingly, whether it’s their first, second or fourteenth property.

It’s an entire myth that they can reap the benefits of house prices in their sleep. There are none (“house prices fall another 10%...”) and there is none (sleep). An empty property is a financial and psychological burden to any owner.

And the changes to the law you suggest would make the penalties for 'irresponsible ownership' so punitive as to put ownership very firmly in the hands of only those who can stomach the loss ie., the very, very rich - or the state.


Back on earth and in Liverpool’s case, the local ‘state’ (ie., council) would end up owning vast tracts of low-grade housing and empty land that it couldn’t develop. Oh...

***
Asking property owners to behave responsibly isn't 'nannying' it's just asking them to put social cohesiveness before profit / self-interest. Anyone who owns property needs to put money aside for its maintenance. Properties don't self-clean or self-renew - they are in a constant process of slow deterioration! Obviously the less financial resources you have the more difficult this will be but maybe if we had an expanded, good quality rental sector people would postpone buying until they were in a position to afford it. Alternatively, they might want to spend their time renting a property and having a life if rents were kept at low enough levels.

I don't know well you know the city but you seem to be unaware of how property owners do let properties become derelict whether its the case of Frenson in Ropewalks (and their portfolio of derelict Georgian properties) or houses in Devonshire / Belvidere Road and around the Sefton Park area that were poorly maintained in order to drive out tenants on low rents. The Georgian property on Everton Road mentioned by Ged is an example of a potentially high value property because of its location. Renovating this property and restoring it to Georgian splendour would be extremely unprofitable and would need to be a very expensive labour of love. Allowing it to fall down and then building 20 units on the site could prove very lucrative. That's how it works nearly every time. Often in Liverpool people own a property (I'm not talking about owner-occupied houses here) in a potentially high value area but don't have the financial resources to develop it, the temptation is to wait until someone will pay a great deal of money for it. Think about how much money the King Edward pub site is now worth.

House prices tend to rise over time unless an area is blighted by being part of a regeneration scheme or becomes a dumping home for problem families. That's why owning a property is still seen as a viable long-term investment.

If LCC hadn't so badly managed the housing stock there wouldn't be the problems that exist today in many parts of the city. If the council builds /commissions low grade housing stock or its policy results in creating ghettos of deprivation within certain parts of the city then maybe it should think about changing what it does and, for once, learning from its mistakes.