Originally Posted by
Peter McGurk
...
If nobody wants to buy a place or they haven’t got the money to do it up themselves or no-one is interesting in living or working there, there’s nothing anyone can do to change that (whether it’s owned by the council or not).
You can’t 'easily solve' the situation if no-one wants to buy it or live in it. You’re stuck with it and if you’ve just bought it (or inherited it), it hurts.
The existing law gives too many rights to property owners and doesn't force them to display civic responsibility in how they manage their property. It needs to be changed to include a legal requirement that forces property owners to maintain their properties to a reasonable standard. If people can't afford to do so then they can manage this by selling their property rather than allowing it to deteriorate further with all the associated knock-on effects.
div>
Because housing is a social resource the law should also be changed so that anyone who owns a second property and keeps it empty in order to milk its value will be very heavily taxed during the period it's empty, and there needs to be an up-to-date register of who owns what so an inability to act can't be blamed on not knowing who to act against.
Liverpool has a large number of people who are owners of smallish terraced houses who are caught in a trap if their area becomes a dumping ground for problem families or has too many poorly maintained properties that bring about a reduction in house values. There isn't anywhere they can go unless they have the kind of salary that enables a choice to be made.
Owning and managing property is a social responsibility and this needs to be more strongly emphasised and policed. We live in culture that celebrates using property as a vehicle to increase personal wealth/status regardless of the price others have to pay.
Bookmarks