As much as it would clearly be a lovely thing to do, it's just not practical in terms of this particular tragedy is it? Why? Well how about...
1. How do you determine which properties have been empty for long enough? Seriously - how would anyone know?
2. Where do you draw the line between "Empty for too long" and "Empty but not enough so we can't reclaim the property"?
3. What if an "Empty for too long" property owners are returning tomorrow? Or the day after? Or next week? Where do they go when they can't live in the property they legally own?
There may be a wide-scale problem here, but I'm not sure how it can be rectified in the immediate vicinity of the disaster in the very short timescales required, as much as is sounds great to propose putting some of these poor people in multi-million pound properties.
A terribly pejorative thread, but some interesting comment. Some surprising (but actually not surprising, having chatted to the bloke on many occasions) 'leftish' suggestions from, well I won't embarrass him I find that I am perhaps more 'rightish' on this issue. As stated above. . . . not so easy to do..... and there is a subliminal narrative of 'soak the rich' here that resonates also with the 'squatters rights' activites of the 70s. I can remember lots of trustafarian students breaking into and squatting in houses on Fulham, when I was a (very not trustafarian) student. To commandeer someone's property can't be acceptable.
However, yes, I agree with, OK, I'll name him [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] who seem to be suggesting (and I'll take the logic on a bit) that folk who have property that is not their 'official residence' (which can be checked) could perhaps have their property 'registered' for use in emergencies (by that I mean terrorism or an event like his fire, not 'routine' hardship) with a convivial and managed process (inventory, photos etc - all easily compiled). (incidentally whoever raised the straw man of second homes in Cornwall is missing the point I feel).
These places (in London and other cities with swish neighbourhoods) are kept empty for years because it is more convenient for the owner to collect growth in material wealth than even to bother collecting rent. They should not be punished for this all the while it is legal, but to have usable properties kept empty like this while families are forced into (well who knows what?) stinks to high heaven. Immoral and indefensible.
Contrast this to the extreme generosity and sacrifice being made by people who, I suspect (but would not make a big deal of it) who do not live off the income of the capital growth of their second/third/etc homes. I have been totally blown away by the kindness and humanity shown by so many, for no reward or thanks. THIS is what makes me proud to be English (and I use that term in its most controversial sense - someone who lives here legally and wants to belong here, and does).