Germany Confiscating Homes To Use For Migrants

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Don't really care since it's Germany's problem. Sucks to be them, I have no sympathy for thier stupidity. They made their bed, now they will sleep in it and get a good nights rest. For tomorrow there will be dispair.

Lol, there are a lot of things that this country has done, which wasn't your/our doing, but was done anyway. Is it their stupidity, or their governments? I doubt that the majority of their people wanted this. You should care because the issues over there will soon become issues over here.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: seasonal

Actually, I come at it from the perspective of those forced to live in areas affected by artificial drops in house prices, created by people utilising their rights, without taking proper responsibility for their actions and their property. No right that has ever been afforded to a person, comes without responsibilities.

So you are saying that if a person works to buy a property, it's ok to take it off them if you don't like the look of it?
Interesting.
So you would agree then that poorer people who don't maintain their homes correctly (to your standard) should be evicted and their houses given to someone else then, right?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, that is precisely the point. Empty houses make for reduced revenue to the local council, because there are fewer people able to live within a given postcode. Further to that, it simply is not the case that property can be simply left empty for years and years, without posing a risk to property around it. Things decay, collapse, denature, when uncared for. Those problems that an occupied dwelling would have cured over a weekend, do not get noticed until the problem has become a catastrophe.

There is literally no way for it to remain "not the governments business" as long as property remains empty for long periods. That simply does not compute in the least. Property does not simply get along just fine without maintenance and occupation. Houses need tenants as much as tenants need houses.

"Responsibility" is a word that is not exact. Your idea of responsibility is different than mine. This is where the trouble starts, and has always started.
Revenues are not the property owners problem-form a private property stand point.
Leaving a property vacant is no-ones business-
There must be laws to deal with dilapidated homes/buildings that doesn't include this flavor of fascism.

a reply to: Ohanka

This whole 'crisis' is suspiciously artificial with Bundeswehrmacht lieutenant in full false flag terror mode but here you are, appealing to the same authority in form of 'Mr. Gauck'.

Listen... you hear that? The rustle of money raining down on a few insanely rich Europeans, something must be very right.

a reply to: UKTruth

I meant exactly what I wrote.

Be sure that you read what I wrote, and respond to that, rather than putting words I neither said, nor meant, in my mouth.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

I meant exactly what I wrote.

Be sure that you read what I wrote, and respond to that, rather than putting words I neither said, nor meant, in my mouth.

I read it. Apparently people have a responsibility to keep their own property in the condition you approve of, otherwise it's ok to take it off them - oh and you seem to think the govt should have a say in how much time people spend in their own property.
Personally, i think it would be far better for govts (and busy bodies) to butt out of other people's affairs.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Ohanka

This whole 'crisis' is suspiciously artificial with Bundeswehrmacht lieutenant in full false flag terror mode but here you are, appealing to the same authority in form of 'Mr. Gauck'.

Listen... you hear that? The rustle of money raining down on a few insanely rich Europeans, something must be very right.

I'm not making an appeal to authority. I meant to mock the absurd out of touch reality that these Eurocrats live in.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: TrueBrit

You seem to come at it from a gov't perspective.

I come at it from a freedom stand point.

No you're coming at it from a capitalist standpoint. Capitalism and freedom are not synonyms.

You're right to purchase and put up a fence around the 100 acres of woods across the street from my house restricts my freedom to pitch a tent and shoot a deer there.

a reply to: UKTruth

Please do not indulge in simply lying.

It is so tedious when compared to your usual, more inventive methods of getting things completely around your neck.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: UKTruth

Please do not indulge in simply lying.

It is so tedious when compared to your usual, more inventive methods of getting things completely around your neck.

Whatever, mate.
I'll leave you to your support of govt overreach and invasion of personal property rights.
Can't say I am that surprised.

a reply to: UKTruth

I find it ironic that you are the one saying "whatever" to me, when clearly, you have invented a sentence I did not utter, and are ascribing to me beliefs I do not hold, because you are either to obstinate, or thick, to assimilate the actual words I did use, and what they mean when placed in context with one another. Whatever yourself, good sir. Whatever yourself.

a reply to: seasonal

yes, this is confirmed by German news:
www.abendblatt.de...

link is in German, but Google translate provides a good translation for it.
However, nowhere is mentioned this is for migrants.

Seems this is part of a law passed in 2013 in Hamburg, to avoid empty flats left unoccupied.

Seems the owner had been reminded several times, he promised to rent the flats, but actually never did.
So according to the law, the city is now "acting".

In my opinion, the debate should be: should a city be allowed to do so?
I must say I find it pretty harsh. But at the same time it is really difficult to find a flat to rent nowadays in many EU cities.
And in this case the city is not taking the flats away from him, they are forcing him to rent.

a reply to: UKTruth
You are getting the wrong end of the stick. In the UK it's not called confiscation, ie. taking without remuneration, the method used in the UK is compulsory purchase. That's where the owner has his property compulsory purchased for the market value.
I would suspect that this is the method that they are using in Germany.
Even though it is not inherently illegal to leave properties to run down it is morally offensive on so many levels that it NEEDS addressing in the UK as a whole.
If you don't believe me of this "devastation" just nip down to the South West and ask the locals what they think of "rich" people buying (for inflated prices so the locals can't compete) homes that they leave empty for the majority of the year because?? Well holiday home doncha know. Empty properties devastates communities.

a reply to: KarmaComa

thanks Karma...I thought there was more to it just from source used in the OP

a reply to: Bone75

How would you do it?

If I understand it, ownership is no longer a good thing?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ScepticScot

If you have no control over your private property, you do not own it.

They do have control over it. This deals with an outlier situation where property has been left unused for an extensive period if time. In cities with lack of available housing this can be a real issue.

Ownership has not changed.

Even though it is not inherently illegal to leave properties to run down it is morally offensive on so many levels that it NEEDS addressing in the UK as a whole.

a reply to: crayzeed

Why is it morally offensive?

a reply to: ScepticScot

It does not have to change. If the owner wants it to sit vacant because he is an idiot, does he not have that freedom?

Or is it the decision of some one else to take control of the property and renovate and lease out?

This is the real issue, not that it is going to be used for migrants (that is an issue too, but not one that is my focus).

a reply to: seasonal

Holocaust guilt.

Wouldn't happen anywhere else.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ScepticScot

It does not have to change. If the owner wants it to sit vacant because he is an idiot, does he not have that freedom?

Or is it the decision of some one else to take control of the property and renovate and lease out?

This is the real issue, not that it is going to be used for migrants (that is an issue too, but not one that is my focus).

People don't have compete freedom to do with their property what they want anywhere in the devolped world. Where the line between personal rights and social benefit should be drawn is of course debatable.

None of which changes that the headline is misleading as the property is not being confiscated.