Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barcelona to fine banks with empty houses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barcelona to fine banks with empty houses

    Barcelona city council has acted on its promise to fine banks with empty houses on their books, charging several banks €60,000 in total over 12 homes that have been empty for more than two years.

    “Public authorities have an obligation to use all possible resources to confront the housing emergency,” Barcelona’s mayor, Ada Colau, said as she announced fines on BBVA, Banco Sabadell and Sareb. City officials are investigating another 62 properties to decide whether more fines are appropriate.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...mes?CMP=twt_gu
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  • #2
    In Munich that would probably have been that number for each home. Applicable fine is one cold average rent for each month plus up to 50,000 for doing the deed.

    Comment


    • #3
      This is worse then socialism. What happened to I'll do whatever I like with my property?
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        This is worse then socialism. What happened to I'll do whatever I like with my property?
        What? You have a social responsibility to the people. You as a bank needs to have the best interest of the people in mind. Fuck the shareholders. Give your extra money and property to those in need. But make sure you pay union workers above market value for their crappy work because they've earned their pay and pension.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #5
          Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kato View Post
            Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
            So, owning a cabin in the woods by the lakes should bring you a nice fat fine?
            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

            Comment


            • #7
              I am missing something. Is this for mortgaged assets where borrowers have defaulted? If yes, then banks are anyway responsible for tax and upkeep.
              "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by antimony View Post
                I am missing something. Is this for mortgaged assets where borrowers have defaulted? If yes, then banks are anyway responsible for tax and upkeep.
                Even if you agree with this measure, there are more vacant homes then families in need for one. Will they still fine the banks?

                What message the establishment sends to those barely meeting the ends but paying the installments? Let's all just stop paying?
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  Even if you agree with this measure, there are more vacant homes then families in need for one. Will they still fine the banks?

                  What message the establishment sends to those barely meeting the ends but paying the installments? Let's all just stop paying?
                  Dok

                  I am not agreeing, just tryng to understand why banks should have assets in the fist place. As a bank shareholder I would be furious if my bank held on to assets without turning them. The ROI is going to fall rapidly
                  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kato View Post
                    Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
                    No it doesn't. My home is my castle. If I should chose to say "to hell it with it" and let it fall down (which is of course unlikely) then I have perfect right to do so no matter how many other people may wish to live in it. What is mine is mine absolutely and if I reject your 'public good' (as you see it) for my 'private good', even if my perception of my own good be mistaken, the state that forces it's ideas over mine is crossing a very dangerous line.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by antimony View Post
                      Dok

                      I am not agreeing, just tryng to understand why banks should have assets in the fist place. As a bank shareholder I would be furious if my bank held on to assets without turning them. The ROI is going to fall rapidly
                      You want the bank to lose the assets? How will that fix the ROI?
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        You want the bank to lose the assets? How will that fix the ROI?
                        No, I am saying the bank should try to recover the lost money as soon as possible or at least try to get some income from it. It is not clear if the houses are rented. that would provide some income. I do not understand (let alone condone) what the local government is doing citing "housing crisis or whatever. All I am saying is that as a shareholder I would want the bank to give me bette returns than just holding onto property.
                        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by snapper View Post
                          No it doesn't. My home is my castle. If I should chose to say "to hell it with it" and let it fall down (which is of course unlikely) then I have perfect right to do so no matter how many other people may wish to live in it. What is mine is mine absolutely and if I reject your 'public good' (as you see it) for my 'private good', even if my perception of my own good be mistaken, the state that forces it's ideas over mine is crossing a very dangerous line.
                          I am not sure that this is a watertight argument, keeping rights of other property owners in mind. For example, if I do not maintain my property, my neighbours may be able to take action against me as my actions may drive down the prices of their properties.

                          Have said that, I am not sure what the local government is trying to achieve. Why now ask the banks to rent out the property till they can recover their money. If I was s shareholder that would make me happier than just having empty houses.
                          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by antimony View Post
                            No, I am saying the bank should try to recover the lost money as soon as possible or at least try to get some income from it. It is not clear if the houses are rented. that would provide some income. I do not understand (let alone condone) what the local government is doing citing "housing crisis or whatever. All I am saying is that as a shareholder I would want the bank to give me bette returns than just holding onto property.
                            Fear not, the bank will recover their asset. Lending it for cheap wont make them any favor.
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by antimony View Post
                              I am not sure that this is a watertight argument, keeping rights of other property owners in mind. For example, if I do not maintain my property, my neighbours may be able to take action against me as my actions may drive down the prices of their properties.

                              Have said that, I am not sure what the local government is trying to achieve. Why now ask the banks to rent out the property till they can recover their money. If I was s shareholder that would make me happier than just having empty houses.
                              NINJA loans anyone?
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X