With exorbitant Council Tax rises looming, second home owners who will have to absorb TWICE the level of increase as everyone else, are in a perilous position. Here are 14 reasons why the imposition of this optional law in Aberdeen was without validity.
It doesn't help the homeless. Homeless people generally cannot afford to buy a private house, so forcing second home owners to sell up will simply add even more homes to the ASPC website, which currently has over 2,400 homes for sale. And there are ample houses to rent on the ASPC website and with other estate agents. So forcing second home owners to sell up or to rent out their property doesn't help the overall homeless situation, because frankly, there is no shortage of homes to buy or rent in Aberdeen.
There are 5,793 empty homes in Aberdeen City and only 392 second homes. This is according to the latest data collated by the Scottish government based on Aberdeen City Council's own data (https://www.gov.scot/publications/housing-statistics-empty-properties-and-second-homes/). If the Council really wants to help the homeless it should do something to assist the sale of empty homes and get off the back of second home owners who were already paying a full Council Tax as well as paying money into the local economy, particularly the hospitality industry.
The blame for homelessness lies with government. It was government (starting with Thatcher in the 80s) that sold off most of the social housing in this country. And there have been decades since when governments could have stopped the right-to-buy. But they didn't.
Scapegoating - Second home owners are simply being used as scapegoats by the government to carry the can for homelessness.
An impossible law to enforce equitably - the only people being targeted to pay the 100% Council Tax premium (200% total) are those that inform the Council they have a second home. Anyone not doing so can simply lie low and get off scot-free. The Council does not have a reliable mechanism for identifying second home owners. For example, Aberdeen City Council has no means to catch all the workers who rent a second home and are also legally liable to pay the premium. Many oil workers, for example, come to Aberdeen during the week, stay in rented accommodation, and go back to their family home at weekends. They are mostly living in ignorance of the requirement to pay the premium and the Council aren't aware of them either. I know this because I have spoken to many in this situation! All completely oblivious to the second home premium!
There is no shortage of homes for locals - the outcry about second homes started in small coastal tourist villages in Wales where "locals" were supposedly finding it hard to find homes to buy because a lot of homes were owned by second home owners who left them empty half the year. The situation in Aberdeen couldn't be more different. There are over 2,400 homes for sale on ASPC, so there are plenty homes available for locals to buy in Aberdeen.
Glasgow City Council did not adopt the second homes levy - If Glasgow City Council did not adopt the second homes levy (where the desire for second home ownership is presumably stronger), you have to ask why Aberdeen City Council adopted it.
An impossible situation for second home owners - how would you like to wake up one morning and find your Council Tax had doubled overnight, and that there was absolutely nothing you can do about it, other than try to sell up? No discounts, no assessment of your financial situation, no reckoning on your ability to pay, just like it or lump it. ACC could have imposed the levy on only new second home owners such that anyone purchasing a second home knew what they were getting into. But they didn't. They simply dropped the bombshell on existing second home owners with no way out.
Falling house prices in Aberdeen - over the past 5-10 years house prices have dropped dramatically in Aberdeen, mainly due to the UK and Scottish governments attempts to drive the oil industry into extinction. This has left many second home owners caught between a rock and a hard place - unable to sell up due to negative equity but forced to pay the Council Tax premium without any assessment of their ability to pay. And the fall in house prices is not minor. In many cases, property values have fallen by up to 40% in Aberdeen in the past 10 years.
It's cruel, spiteful and unfair - We all know the real reason this policy was introduced. it wasn't to help the homeless. It wasn't because all second home owners or renters are rich. No, it was simply enacted as an act of spite by an SNP-led Scottish government and SNP-led local Councils who have an inherent hatred towards anyone of moderate wealth (assets or money). It is pure signalling to SNP supporters, who by and large don't have second homes. It is throwing meat to the wolves.
It goes against a basic human right - everyone should have the right to spend their money on whatever they choose to, as long as it's legal. And they shouldn't be persecuted for doing so. Some people choose to buy themselves an expensive car (e.g. Range Rover). Some choose to spend their money on expensive holidays (e.g. cruises). Others choose to spend their money on fashionable clothes. Others choose to help their offspring get on in life (e.g. paying their way through University or providing a deposit for a home). Not for any of these reasons do we say they have to pay a premium to do this because there are people in the world worse off than them. So why are second home owners the exceptions to this rule? It is discriminatory.
It's not so different to ethnic cleansing - we are all appalled when we see ethic cleansing on TV. No one likes to see someone driven from their home because of their religion or race, etc. Yet forcing people to sell up their second homes isn't so different. it is still pushing people out of their homes. It's just that it's being done because local government doesn't like anyone of apparent moderate wealth. Different reason, but still pushing people out of their homes because they are hated.
It won't solve anything, it will just spread misery - three years from now, where will we be? No further on. The homeless will still be homeless. Second home owners may have sold up pushing the numbers of homes for sale on ASPC above 3,000. Second home owners that have sold up will have lost tens of thousands of pounds due to negative equity. And the Council will have lost a home owner and the Council Tax they were content to pay before the rate was doubled. Throw in all the misery caused, the additional stress and anxiety, and you could hardy call it a success. The only success i suspect will be the glee that the SNP government takes in "kicking" people of apparent (but not necessarily true) wealth.
This wasn't how Councils were supposed to act - when the second homes Council tax premium was first being considered by the Scottish government, the First Minister (Humza Yousaf) said then that councils should think carefully before choosing to enact the premium. He said they should only do so if there was clear evidence that second home owners were stopping locals from buying property. But Councils couldn't resist the opportunity to perform a "tax grab". All the good intentions to only impose the premium if there was a sound reason for doing so, went out the window. A chance to grab some money, who cares why? That was the thinking. And 29 of 32 local authorities thought the same. Pathetic.
THE COUNCIL TAX PREMIUM ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN SECOND HOMES HAS NO VALIDITY
コメント