Would you like to see a magic trick?

[smokingboot]

Here's how it works, according to someone who knows this particular situation much better than I do.

Suppose you are a businessman, and you buy up a small lake and its surrounds. You try to get people in, perhaps there's interest in a water park but obviously that would take a lot of money. Then suddenly you are able to develop the place for over £10 million. How did you do that?

Here's a way. You buy up old buildings in a small town, say, an ex government building, for around £500,000. And you turn that into 50 rooms. Those rooms are alarmingly small with minimal facilities, ie no kitchens and the most basic communal washrooms/toilets, these last without even doors on them. But you put asylum seekers/homeless people in each of those rooms, and the government pays you £100 per person per night.

And that's in the smaller of the two places you own, to which you apply the same formula. So how long is it before you've paid off the mortgage? Then abracadabra!
That's how, when roads are falling apart and the country is groaning, and only foodbanks seem to be growing, you can turn taxpayers money into a £10 million waterpark.

***

And if we are very very good, and judicious pressure is placed, and the churches make sad eyes at him, we might even be able to persuade him to put doors on those toilets.

Comments

[mallorys_camera]

Wait. The government is loaning this hypothetical businessman £10 million???

Being a fan of capitalism—caveat here: capitalism with govt safety nets and regulation—I would argue that even with the most minimal of amenities, by providing asylum seekers/homeless people with any lodging, the businessman is performing a service.

Nobody else is doing that.

Who's paying for that lodging? I imagine it's the government. (If the situation in this hypothetical place is similar to the situation in the U.S., lodging for asylum seekers/homeless is subsidized by the government.) So, I would also say it's on the government to enforce standards on housing conditions i.e. doors on the toilets, etc. In other words, the govt should refuse to deal with landlords who don't provide those amenities.

Also viz sad-eyed churches: In the States, at least, most churches are affiliated with denominations that have considerable assets. If religious institutions really thought taking care of the poor was a priority, they have the means to do it. Their bleating and sad eyes make me think it's not a priority.

[smokingboot]

Yes, I've nothing against capitalism in terms of service/product exchange. The government will pay him for a bad service because it's better than no service, and really he can do what he likes with his money.

I do have an issue with the point at which his desire for profit means he cuts out every basic dignity, sardine tin rooms, no kitchens. He really can afford doors on toilets. For sure regulations are minimal and shouldn't be, the government should be enforcing standards. As with so much else, the government is too pleased to have any solution to check it closely. But where the government fails, and the church sleeps, the individual can see what is appropriate or demeaning.