A convincing answer was offered by Piers Corbyn (the brother of the Labour Party leader), who, in the run up to the mayoral elections, proposed a simple, innovative, and low cost solution – recycle all empty property. It is hoped that Sadiq Khan will adopt this idea. After all, recycling is part of the global green agenda – so why not apply it to housing?
Pier Corbyn points to an obscene contradiction in modern capitalism; that construction costs have never been lower yet the price of housing is more expensive than ever. In fact British house builders tend to use arcane, costly and labour intensive construction methods. This is because a revolution in construction methods and materials offer the opportunity to build at a fraction of the existing costs. As a consequence, a huge contrast is evident between large-scale commercial and residential construction projects and most home building in Britain.
This exposes the fact that powerful entrenched rentier interests – people and companies that profit by exploiting the shortage of housing – dominate London's property market. This parasitic tendency within British capitalism was noted way back in 1909 by Winston Churchill, who said: "Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public."
Indeed, according to research by the leading U.K. think tank, The Policy Exchange, there is enough unused commercial land and property to be recycled into 420,000 apartments in London alone, and perhaps many more. The question is whether or not Mayor Khan and local councils are prepared to challenge the power of vested interests in land ownership? Londoners need the answer to be yes.
Heiko Khoo is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.formacion-profesional-a-distancia.com/opinion/heikokhoo.htm
Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.