Because we’ve enabled it and won’t change it. The people that own them would rather it rot than lose top market value
That doesn’t seem to be the main factor, according to the article. One of them, sure, but definitely not the sole or main.
Here in Belgium you pay an extra tax on unoccupied homes. Unless you can prove you’re working on getting it up to standards, but there are hard time limits on those permits.
That’s great. Does it work out how it’s intended to work?
Sorta. It’s being somewhat selectively enforced. Certain people always seem to be able to skirt the rules without consequences.
Oh oh, I know. They got money?
I like the sound of this.
Should ban all foreign ownership of residential property and implement a massive non resident tax on people owning multiple properties (possible exemptions for landlords on this, for now).
The challenge is that there is no single reason for homes being empty.
One factor is the probate system, which can in some cases take several years, during which time the deceased person’s house cannot be sold. Katie Watson from probate research firm Finders International, believes increasing staff numbers could help address a court backlog.
Then there is the issue that sometimes, councils are unable to track down the owners of empty homes. Jasmine Basran, head of policy and campaigns at homeless charity Crisis, believes there is a “lack of coherent data”.
When the BBC approached English councils, the information we were provided about the condition and reason for homes being empty covered only around 13% of their LTE stock.
This means councils are “blind to their potential”, argues Ms Basran.
The article doesn’t mention anything about foreign ownership, and a company investing in real estate probably wouldn’t want their assets sitting unused and generating no profits in the long-term.
Squatting saves lives
greed
