Homes for Londoners first

Property developers are not charitable organizations, they invest significant sums of money to create properties for sale, whether these go to social landlords or the private market.
the obscene cost of property is not the fault of foreign investors but a product of our own greed; we believe that all property must be owned and must keep on increasing in value. in old money a mortgage could only be raised at 3 times your annual salary, this is then affordable and the market sustainable.
it would however lead to market prices increasing only in line with wage inflation, are we ready for that to happen or are we too greedy and going to view property as investment opportunities.

Yes, and perhaps this should apply to ALL areas, not just London. I recall how Wales, the West Country and some other rural villages have been made into ghost towns in the winter months because they have been purchased as second homes; locals cannot afford to buy them because the prices have been pushed up by wealthier people buying the p[properties.

The housing crisis is about a lack of homes in London for people to live in. This policy focuses on home-ownership, rather than the fundamentals of having somewhere to live. Instead the focus should be:
1. Increasing the number of homes
2. Decreasing the number of residential properties not being used as homes (eg holiday rentals & properties sitting empty for investment reasons)

I believe that people not resident in the UK should not be allowed to buy property here. Property in London and increasingly in other cities is being used as a bank account for foreign nationals, not as a home. There are other countries where non-residents cannot buy property. It is driving up the price of property to ridiculous levels.

I don't know enough to suggest the mechanics of how to do it - I want to block mansions and blocks of flats being bought up by oligarchs taking much-needed money out of their countries corruptly - mainly but not only Russia, Saudi and neighbours, Africa - taking property and putting up prices for the little people here.

I like the principle but there are flaws to the problem.

1. Very very few properties in London go on the market now for less than £350,000
2. Determining who counts as a Londoner when the majority of people who have made the city their home are born elsewhere.

I believe that any house and flat bought for investment should be required to be income-earning. occupied as a residential property and its rental income should be taxed and that tax should benefit the Local Authority that the property is based in. In this way, the community as a whole would benefit and the owner will still realise an improvement in the value of the property as an investment. Furthermore, I believe it is essential that all property owners should be required to appoint a Managing Agent and obtain a Property Maintenance Insurance Policy to maintain the property in good standing and that the Managing Agent and Property Maintenance Policy should be registered with the Local Authority. The Local Authority should be permitted to require the Managing Agent to undertake repairs to the property if it became obvious that the property is not being maitained properly.

In practice this would cause lots of problems and probably would make things worse. For example:

1. If you have a property for sale worth £325,000 you would put the price up to £350,000 to access a bigger pool of purchasers. The prices of properties near to but currently below the level set would all inflate. This will distort the market and not in a good way.

2. Who is a Londoner? Who is an overseas buyer? Does that mean that if someone born and bred in London went to live in Manchester for a few years they would not be allowed to buy a house in their home town of London when they want to come back. If Manchester is OK what if a Londoner went to work abroad for a while does this now make them an overseas buyer and not a Londoner when they want to come home? Do we really want Londoners to be unable to develop their skills and careers working for a while in other countries for fear of being prohibited from buying a place to live on their return?

3.Alternatively if you do manage to buy a property below the magic £350,000 does this mean you can never sell it and have to rent it if ever you plan to be away for a long time.

Not a good idea too complicated in reality. Much higher council tax for homes unoccupied for say greater than 6 months a year would be much easier. Whether the owner is foreign or not is not the issue - whether the property is occupied is.

In Paris after the war it was illegal to have housing left unoccupied. Whilst the majority of Londoners, would not consider London to resemble post-war Paris, those that are homeless/itinerant/migrant/refugee, fight personal wars daily.

It is a very difficult and complex issue.

Should one of the mansions on Bishop's Lane be rented out to a local Londoner by law, or should it be left empty for years, untill the right 'buyer' comes along? I do not think it is correct to meddle in the housing market in such a way.

Therefore there has to be a new distinction between rented housing and housing for sale. Rented housing must absolutely be there to provide housing for Londoners. Housing that is for sale and occupancy by the owner of the property should be left to market forces.

any property thats has been empty for more than 12 months without a major renovation in place should be forfeited and sold to a london resident in the area for a fraction of its market value.

if we utilised the empty properties in london the prices would be affordable and foreign investors woudnt buy a property to lose money instead of buying them leaving them empty