News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:London: the city that ate itself by vidarh on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:20PM (#9802066)
> These then gets put back on market with extra-ordinary rents (typically 5% annual of purchase price).

Why do you think this rent is extraordinary? Unless you meant that it is extraordinary as a result of extraordinary purchase prices. As a proportion of purchase prices, these rentals are nothing special. Rental prices will lie within a relatively narrow band near the cost of maintaining a mortgage for the simple reason that if they get much higher, people can finance more property purchases and hope to gain on price growth, and if they get much lower, a substantial proportion of investors lose the ability to leverage and so the returns won't be attractive.

> If you walk through Knightsbridge in the evening, at a time when people in well-adjusted cities might be having dinner with their families and friends, or at least watching TV with their kids, you will see a wall of black, punctuated by the odd square of illumination.

Try walking around the wealthiest area of any city, and the patterns will be very different from "normal" areas: Flats will be larger, and someone at home does not necessarily mean the building will look very lit; more people have second homes, or travel a lot, or work late, and so an inhabited flat may still have people at home more rarely. You can easily find rich areas that look almost black even when most houses are occupied.

I don't know if Knightsbridge is an aberration, but I do know London in general does not in fact have a lot of empty properties in proportion to its size/population. I don't have a source handy, but the last time I looked at the stats it was small. More importantly, the vast majority was empty for other reasons than uninterested absentee landlords.

Re:London: the city that ate itself by nine_k on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @12:30AM (#9802969)
"Extraordinary rent" is, to me, when the property in a high-demand place is vacant for prolonged periods of time, due to the price. Probably occupancy figures are available somewhere publicly; if so, this statement can be checked against reality.
Re:London: the city that ate itself by vidarh on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @08:16AM (#9811329)
Properties are almost never left empty due to "extraordinary rent". Landlords that want to rent out typically lowers their rent demands until they fill the property. Rents at ~5% of the purchase price is, with current mortgage rates, in any case a perfectly competitive rate.
Re:London: the city that ate itself by zimpenfish on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @12:36PM (#9806499)
"Writing for The Independent, the former Olympics Minister pledged to tackle the "scandal" of London's 22,000 empty homes, saying they could house 55,000 people - about half the 114,000 Londoners living in temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfast." (Jan 2015)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tessa-jowell-i...

Re:London: the city that ate itself by vidarh on Wednesday July 01, 2015 @08:11AM (#9811308)
22,000 empty homes in a city of 8.5 million is exceedingly low. Using their own calculation of 2.4 people per home, and assuming this holds for the entire population, that is 0.6% of the housing mass.

Consider the many reasons why properties will lay empty, such as for example:

* Owner dies; handling the estate can sometimes take a year.

* Refurbishment can drag out; it's not unusual for large scale building refurbishments to take a year or two.

* Uncertainty over developments; e.g. near me a building of flats stood empty for 2 years or so because it was slated for demolition to make way for new developments that is finally now underway.

When you factor this in, 0.6% minus the "acceptable" reasons simply doesn't leave much room left for any large number of homes to have been left empty for no good reason.

The real scandal is not that there are 22,000 empty homes, but that consecutive governments have left councils in a state that means they don't have the available council flats to find longer term homes for those they are legally required to assist with housing for. They are in temporary housing not because housing can't be found, but because doing so means spending over the "wrong" budgets, and spending too much to replenish council housing that was sold off cheaply starting with Thatcher and that now would cost a fortune to replace because you'd be competing with quite wealthy people willing to stretch far to avoid being displaced further out of the centre of town.