a reply to: seasonal
First of all, these properties were in a state of disrepair, and the landlord had shown no interest in ever having them renovated, even though they
could have made a significant amount of money for themselves by doing so, and renting them out once more. Unfortunately, the owner declined on several
occasions, which will have had two major effects on local matters.
First of all, a significant number of people could have been housed in those residences, but because the landlord did not want to pay to have them
renovated, he was simply leaving them empty, and had been since 2012. I would argue that if one is in a position to own six residential properties,
one ought to keep them in good and livable order, or sell them, one or the other. Owning land and doing nothing with it for an extended period is not
a luxury that can be afforded in a built up, metropolitan area. The reasons for this are many fold, but apart from anything else, one must understand
that a cities life blood is those who live in it, and if there is a housing shortage, it is highly irresponsible to leave buildings damaged and empty,
which could house people who want to pay rent.
Second of all, the real crux of issues like these, is what happens to buildings when they go entirely without proper maintenance for extended
periods. There was a case local to me, where a landlord had his property seized by the council, because he had left it empty for something like twelve
years or so, despite having the money to pay for renovation. This had caused all manner of problems, including damp troubles which were spreading to
neighbouring properties, tiles coming free of the roof in the wind and falling off the roof with regularity, posing a risk to the passing public,
surrounding properties, and the residents thereof, and rot, which had set into various elements of the buildings construction, and was causing a
stench. The building had been left full of trash also, which attracted vermin to the area. House prices on that one road TUMBLED as a result of the
presence of this building.
So, the council, after much consultation and attempts to negotiate a different outcome, sent in contractors to bring the building back to code, and
charged the owner, as well as putting tenants in the building.
And before anyone gives me a sob story about personal liberty and property, I get it, I really do. But what you may not be aware of, is that property
owners of the sort detailed in this case, and indeed in the case here in Southend, UK, can be bloody tricky people. For one thing, it is a little
known, not to mention very sly tactic, to purchase poorly maintained property, leave it to go to crap, and wait for other properties surrounding it to
fall drastically in price. This means that they can THEN come in, purchase the surrounding properties at a steal compared with the price they are
really worth, and do the work on the Trojan house (not a bad term for it actually), leaving them with a larger number of properties, by way of
stealth, deception, and downright willful disregard for the hearth and home of those who live in the properties surrounding the dilapidated one they
How would all of you law abiding, property loving, freedom enjoying fans of liberty, like it if some douche bought the house next door to or a house
close to yours, and deliberately allowed it to go to crap, with the express intention of lowering the price of your house on the open market? I mean,
none of you are probably fans of Universal Healthcare (you know, where the taxpayer is the only one paying for anyones treatment). So hows this? You
live in a house for a decade, intend to live in it your whole life, got all your money in it. You get sick. But of course, when you go to sell it, you
realise that the fellow who owns the house down the block from you, only owns that house so that he can make local prices come way down, so that he
can afford more than one or two properties on the street. You cannot sell your house at a price worth selling it for, and because you cannot work at
the moment, you either have to rely on state aid, or sell your house for a fraction of its actual worth, so that you can get treatment.
That is not right, you know it is not. At least this way, those properties will not be allowed to decay, they will be used for something, rather than
sitting empty and having no revenue going in or out of them. It may not be ideal, but people really need to stop buying property unless they have
already costed, formulated, and partially enacted a plan to see those properties become homes to residents and revenue for the owner.
edit on 15-5-2017 by TrueBrit because: grammatical error corrected