An interesting little omission from The Guardian here:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Scores of complaints have been made about rented properties on royal land and tenants have faced more than 100 evictions, a Guardian investigation has found, prompting anger over how the Queen’s £14bn property portfolio is managed. The crown estate, which helps bankroll the Queen by giving the monarch 25% of its profits, has sought to evict 113 tenants in the past five years so they can sell their homes for profit. [/perfectpullquote]Gives isn’t quite the right word there. It’s a deal – the Crown hands over the estate on a reign by reign basis, gets back a certain portion of the revenues.
The bit that’s being left out of course is who gets the other 75% of the profits? The Treasury.
So, the actual complaint is that tenants are being screwed to pay for diversity advisers. Odd The Guardian doesn’t put it that way really.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
If the tenants were being screwed the Crown Estate would make more money from rental income than from evicting them and selling the houses.
Guardian and logic, never the twain shall meet
‘has sought to evict 113 tenants in the past five years so they can sell their homes for profit.’
Selling the property or selling the leases to new tenants who can afford higher rents? The Crown Estates makes its income from rents. It seems unlikely it needs to liquidate its assets to get capital, thereby reducing its future income potential.