-
government would spend years in court against the insurance companies that own these things to implement it
I think they're more worried about the private estates tbh - the Duke of Westminster owns most of Mayfair and Belgravia, not to mention his rural holdings, and his lawyers have stated their intention to utilise human rights law to resist any such expropriation. I imagine the end point would be something along the lines of what happened when slavery was outlawed in the UK, with the slavers being handsomely rewarded for the expropriation of their 'property'.
You're right it'd be a legal quagmire. But it's also the right thing to do. The outcome of our current system of leasehold, which is more or less unique in the world, is Grenfell. It's the cladding crisis. People's homes need to be homes first, not a revenue stream for third party freeholders. Imo.
ReekBlefs-
I imagine the end point would be something along the lines of what happened when slavery was outlawed in the UK, with the slavers being handsomely rewarded for the expropriation of their 'property'.
If you are comparing ground rents to slavery you can, politely, fuck off. I also think linking ground rents to Grenfell (which was of course council-owned) is a bad faith argument.
NickCJ
Probably the right answer. Would be a huge expropriation if all ground rents (including relatively sane ones that go up 2-3% p.a.) were zeroed, presumably the government would spend years in court against the insurance companies that own these things to implement it.