YESTERDAY’S letter on eyesores from George Mitchell crosses from the subject of unused land to empty buildings. With respect, and with more than a fair degree of experience, George is unfortunately very far from the real issues that apply to empty buildings.
1) Any long-term unoccupied building is levied by the local authority at an additional surcharge rate of 100% of the normal council tax level. So it’s 200% that council tax is paid at. Normally for no use at all of the council services.
2) Normally there is a reason for property being unoccupied and turning to a problem building – tenants sometimes leave property, normally after significant rent arrears, in what can only be described as a rather unhygienic and ruined state (I have lots of photos available to share). Their uncollected mail ALWAYS contains debt letters from various agencies and courts and utilities. It is easy to lose interest in a property – you are completely on your own. No help is available at all to restore a property except your own cheque book.
3) It’s not really such a brilliant suggestion that owners be made to sell a property – the reasons include capital gains tax (CGT).Why should I or other sellers lose my CGT allowance, which is capped on an annual basis? A strategic planning and disposals programme is not easy to manage or facilitate. Two, three or four properties may become empty in a year – it’s unpredictable! Selling them all would, as in the case of council tax, again be punitive on property owners.
4) Some properties are empty for a long time due to court/bankruptcy proceedings. Accountants in bankruptcy are almost above the law and responsible for nothing. They can take as long as they want to dispose of a property. It can easily take a period of two or more years for disposal to take effect. This is something that should be subject to a report and reform.
5) Does George really think that it’s a great money earner to keep property empty? Trust me, it’s not.
6) The vicious circle against owners of long-term empty property also continues with the total lack of buildings insurance. It evaporates after a period of three months without occupancy.
Legislation to force sales is punitive. Financial assistance is more beneficial – but some of the uses that our taxes are currently put to could, I would suggest, be better applied for all our benefits.
Happy to discuss further with anyone who has experience of the situation and not those just flying a flag of opinion.
Dougie Gray
Dunbar
READ MORE: Letters: Owners of eyesores should be compelled to sell them
AT the same time as the recent report from the Migration Advisory Committee outlined the impact of immigration on the UK, Oxford Economics published an assessment that highlighted the value of EU citizens to the British economy.
It noted that when it comes to the public finances, European migrants contribute substantially more than they cost, easing the tax burden on other taxpayers. Taxes will therefore have to rise if Brexit brings strict curbs on EU workers, because they pay far more to the public purse than British-born residents and also those from outwith the EU.
Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the Exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult. Over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits – while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero. Non-European migrants will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 to £50,000. This is because most EU migrants arrive fully educated, and many leave before the costs of retirement start to weigh on the public finances.
In total, the net benefit from the class of 2016 was expected to be £26.9 billion, with £19.3bn coming from EU migrants and the remaining £7.5bn from migrants from the rest of the world.
It is all well and good wanting to curb immigration from the EU, but people living in the UK must be made aware of the clear impact this will have on the British economy.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
READ MORE: Why Scotland needs its own immigration system
IF Nigel Macdonald (Letters, September 24) is going to criticise other readers’ letters, it might be an idea to read them with a little more care. If he had, he would have noticed that I and Hector MacLean had some considerable sympathy for the points Carolyn Ritchie was trying to make on P1 assessments.
The comments we made legitimately focused on Ms Ritchie’s style of debate and not on her disillusionment with the SNP as Mr Macdonald wrongly states.
Mr MacLean can speak for himself, but my point is one I’ve made throughout my career when delivering communication training, and it is this: when in discussion or debate, you will find it harder to convince the people you are debating with if you use overstated claims couched in embroidered and colourful language. A good example of this is Mr Macdonald describing the P1 assessments as “son of Michael Forsyth testing”.
Finally, a great way to lose the sympathy of your audience is to end your presentation by hectoring them with a threat.
Douglas Turner
Edinburgh
READ MORE: Letters, September 24
READ MORE: Letters: Playground gang have given the SNP a bloody nose
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here