Greed is going to destroy this country again

steddyeddy

I was sorry to see a local deli/coffee shop I go to had closed down. The owner was an Italian chap who was an Irish citizen and came here to open a business. Anyway at the end of his current lease his landlord demanded a crazy amount of rent and refused to negotiate away from the proposed rent increase. The same thing is happening all over Ireland (Dublin in particular but I apologise if the issue affects you and you are in another part of the country). Shops and businesses are closing left right and center in this country because of greed like this. It's part of what created the artificial pricing of property in this country.

It's not only commmercial businesses but families who are suffering from rent increases in a country facing a recession. There needs to be far more regulation of landlords in this country or the recession will keep going no matter what budget we bring in.

Sky King

That's not greed it's capitalism.

If he doesn't like capitalism tell him to take his business venture to North Korea.

LivelineDipso

steddyeddy wrote: »

Anyway at the end of his current lease his landlord demanded a crazy amount of rent and refused to negotiate away from the proposed rent increase.

These kinds of Kamakazi Landlord stories are very common. Greedy scumbags who would rather destroy a regular rental income for the sake of getting a few bob more. Stupidity and Greed.

There are like a cancer on this country and our economy.

Einhard

That's a terrible situation for any business owner to be in, but I think people tend to forget that landlords have their own financial obligations, and many have enormous mortgages. If they can't make the payments on those mortgages, then they face losing their propery, and even bankruptcy. So it's not as straightforward as "greed".

J Bourke

Sky King wrote: »

That's not greed it's capitalism.

If he doesn't like capitalism tell him to take his business venture to North Korea.

Its not capitalism either, its stupidity. Rather than having some amount of rent, the landlord now has NO rent. :rolleyes:

donegal_road

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was sorry to see a local deli/coffee shop I go to had closed down. The owner was an Italian chap who was an Irish citizen and came here to open a business. Anyway at the end of his current lease his landlord demanded a crazy amount of rent and refused to negotiate away from the proposed rent increase. The same thing is happening all over Ireland (Dublin in particular but I apologise if the issue affects you and you are in another part of the country). Shops and businesses are closing left right and center in this country because of greed like this. It's part of what created the artificial pricing of property in this country.

It's not only commmercial businesses but families who are suffering from rent increases in a country facing a recession. There needs to be far more regulation of landlords in this country or the recession will keep going no matter what budget we bring in.

and it is no different up here. I heard it said, *and Im not an accountant but someone here might verify this*, that if a landlord of a commercial premises cannot let out his space, he can write off the rent loss against his end-of -year tax. So the units are worth more to landlords empty than occupied. Therefore a crazy high rent is demanded so as to ensure no one will rent it.

steddyeddy

Sky King wrote: »

That's not greed it's capitalism.

If he doesn't like capitalism tell him to take his business venture to North Korea.

He was brining in a lot of business to the area and paying a lot of tax. The area will now lose that money and the country will lose his tax when he finally does move. The landlord is the only one benfitting from this greed.

GKidd

J Bourke wrote: »

Its not capitalism either, its stupidity. Rather than having some amount of rent, the landlord now has NO rent. :rolleyes:

That's really up to the landlord to decide if he wants to cut his losses and look for another tenant.

steddyeddy

Einhard wrote: »

That's a terrible situation for any business owner to be in, but I think people tend to forget that landlords have their own financial obligations, and many have enormous mortgages. If they can't make the payments on those mortgages, then they face losing their propery, and even bankruptcy. So it's not as straightforward as "greed".

Some rents are at celtic tiger prices becuase some leases forbid downward rent reviews and that is greed.

Sulla Felix

I think the problem is that a lot of the owners in these cases are pretty secure. They don't need the rent, so they'd rather leave the property empty than establish a new lower baseline.
For example, two seperate places I've rented in the last 4 years. Lease up in one, guy dropped my rent because he needed the rent for the mortgage and literally couldn't afford to have the property idle for even a month. Another, the property was idle for 9 months before it was rented. I moved around the corner. After six, I gave him a ring to see if he'd move and he really didn't care. Obviously not needing the money there.
Now these are domestic cases, but I'm sure the same can be said for at least some of the commercial sector.

mikemac1

Italian chap could try to get a commercial mortgage and buy the place?

He seemed to be successful

cameramonkey

steddyeddy wrote: »

I was sorry to see a local deli/coffee shop I go to had closed down. The owner was an Italian chap who was an Irish citizen and came here to open a business. Anyway at the end of his current lease his landlord demanded a crazy amount of rent and refused to negotiate away from the proposed rent increase. The same thing is happening all over Ireland (Dublin in particular but I apologise if the issue affects you and you are in another part of the country). Shops and businesses are closing left right and center in this country because of greed like this. It's part of what created the artificial pricing of property in this country.

It's not only commmercial businesses but families who are suffering from rent increases in a country facing a recession. There needs to be far more regulation of landlords in this country or the recession will keep going no matter what budget we bring in.

where is the business? Do you know how much the new and the old rent was?

Agricola

Isnt greed the very essence of capitalism?

VinLieger

Yeah its getting pretty ridiculous especially in dublin city centre where alot of businesses are in agreements dating back to the good days that only allow for "upward only rent reviews" and alot of the landlords dont seem to have any common sense and are sticking to their illogical guns.

There is a very important case between Bewleys and their landlord about this very issue going through the courts which will set precedent for all these situations and if it goes the way of the landlords ALOT of shops and businesses in the city centre will be shutting down

Merch

donegal_road wrote: »

and it is no different up here. I heard it said, *and Im not an accountant but someone here might verify this*, that if a landlord of a commercial premises cannot let out his space, he can write off the rent loss against his end-of -year tax. So the units are worth more to landlords empty than occupied. Therefore a crazy high rent is demanded so as to ensure no one will rent it.

A person doing this would have to be making a profit somewhere to allow them to write off the tax elsewhere and as Im not an accountant either, I believe it would have to be in the same category,
I dont see the benefit of not taking an income in to create a loss, so as to write off a tax from a profit somewhere else.
It would seem more practical to take in an income and pay the tax out of it, if a loss was being made, something would still be earned/payed and also written off?

steddyeddy

GKidd wrote: »

That's really up to the landlord to decide if he wants to cut his losses and look for another tenant.

An empty premise next to you is bad for everyones businesses. As I say if we are in a situation were the landlord is the only one making money in an economy then we as a country are in trouble.

J Bourke

GKidd wrote: »

That's really up to the landlord to decide if he wants to cut his losses and look for another tenant.

I think it would be more in the LL's interest to have a tenant paying 20k for 5 years rather than trying to get 35k in year one and tipping the tenant towards breaking point, like in this case.

donegal_road

Merch wrote: »

A person doing this would have to be making a profit somewhere to allow them to write off the tax elsewhere and as Im not an accountant either, I believe it would have to be in the same category,
I dont see the benefit of not taking an income in to create a loss, so as to write off a tax from a profit somewhere else.
It would seem more practical to take in an income and pay the tax out of it, if a loss was being made, something would still be earned/payed and also written off?

it used to be a tax loop-hole where hotels were able to write off loss of income through vacant rooms throughout the year, against their year's takings

Einhard

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some rents are at celtic tiger prices becuase some leases forbid downward rent reviews and that is greed.

And many of those rents are at Celtic Tiger prices with upward only clauses because the landlords are paying Celtic Tiger mortgages. Things aren't always as simple and black and white as they appear.

GKidd

J Bourke wrote: »

I think it would be more in the LL's interest to have a tenant paying 20k for 5 years rather than trying to get 35k in year one and tipping the tenant towards breaking point, like in this case.

We really don't know the full story. You guys really don't get the point though. A landlord wouldn't cut his nose off to spite his face. Perhaps he has plans for hte building or didn't like the existing tenant.

steddyeddy

Agricola wrote: »

Isnt greed the very essence of capitalism?

Well I'm a capitalist and I wont hide that. I believe in capitalisim because it provides a means of social mobility but if it's not regulated one person ends up preventing others from making money. a regulated market is very important in capitalisim.

Einhard

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm a capitalist and I wont hide that. I believe in capitalisim because it provides a means of social mobility but if it's not regulated one person ends up preventing others from making money. a regulated market is very important in capitalisim.

If the government tells you what you can and cannot charge someone for your services, then it's not capitalism.

steddyeddy

GKidd wrote: »

We really don't know the full story. You guys really don't get the point though. A landlord wouldn't cut his nose off to spite his face. Perhaps he has plans for hte building or didn't like the existing tenant.

Well all over Dublin rents have forced out dublin business owners which has been a further blow to the economy. Do you not think that Dublin retail owners have a problem with high rents.

GRMA

Landlords is being an exploitative arsehole shocker... it's the same the world over

steddyeddy

GRMA wrote: »

Landlords is being an exploitative arsehole shocker... it's the same the world over

Upward only rent reviews are not always legal the world over.

GRMA

steddyeddy wrote: »

Upward only rent reviews are not always legal the world over.

Landlords have forever exploited tenants, it can't be pinned solely on upwards only rent reviews.

As Irish people we should know all about landlords

steddyeddy

Einhard wrote: »

And many of those rents are at Celtic Tiger prices with upward only clauses because the landlords are paying Celtic Tiger mortgages. Things aren't always as simple and black and white as they appear.

No but the borrow a phrase from Spock (I apologise) the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. If he forces out businesses people lose their jobs and the economy suffers when people cant spend their money there. The economy cant suffer because a landlord needs to pay a excessive mortgage.

GRMA

Einhard wrote: »

That's a terrible situation for any business owner to be in, but I think people tend to forget that landlords have their own financial obligations, and many have enormous mortgages. If they can't make the payments on those mortgages, then they face losing their propery, and even bankruptcy. So it's not as straightforward as "greed".

So its ok for landlords to jack up rents if they are stuck for a few bob, to bleed their tenants dry?

Of course it's greed. It's exploitation.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the landlords own the property, why shouldnt they be allowed set the prices


Im thinking of selling my old xbox. I might put it up on adverts for five thousand euro. why not.

Bullseye1

The current government promised they would tackle upward only leases before coming into government and like the rats they are have now stated there is nothing they can do.

Hopefully the Landlord is unable to get anyone else in and the guy with the coffee shop can find a more reasonable landlord.

dj jarvis

steddyeddy wrote: »

Upward only rent reviews are not always legal the world over.

i think what he might mean is that a contract is a contract the world over
if it is in the contract then you are screwed - simple
as for changing it , it was tried , it would be un constitutional to amend the law as it would endanger property rights and land law

and as we know in this country changing laws willy nilly can have un foreseen repercussions , so they have decided best not to go messing with it

new contracts can be argued but legacy ones cant - such is life
,one question , if so much prop is empty , could the coffee shop owner just not get a new premises near the old one on a new contract , would make sense if he had a good trade in the area

there is a lot more to this story that what you are told i think

steddyeddy

GRMA wrote: »

Landlords have forever exploited tenants, it can't be pinned solely on upwards only rent reviews.

As Irish people we should know all about landlords

Becuase it happens that doesn't make it ok.

Sulla Felix

I don't think I'd like to see the govt set rent rates. However it could incentivize renting out vacant units. Afaik the landlord gets a reduced rates charge on vacants, that could do with changing.

steddyeddy

dj jarvis wrote: »

i think what he might mean is that a contract is a contract the world over
if it is in the contract then you are screwed - simple
as for changing it , it was tried , it would be un constitutional to amend the law as it would endanger property rights and land law

and as we know in this country changing laws willy nilly can have un foreseen repercussions , so they have decided best not to go messing with it

new contracts can be argued but legacy ones cant - such is life
,one question , if so much prop is empty , could the coffee shop owner just not get a new premises near the old one on a new contract , would make sense if he had a good trade in the area

there is a lot more to this story that what you are told i think

I dont see how this is surprising. There are many shops that have closed due to high rents. The owner is moving because to another area with better rents.

GRMA

steddyeddy wrote: »

Becuase it happens that doesn't make it ok.

You've picked me up wrong, I agree wholeheartedly that it is completely wrong and disgraceful and shouldn't be allowed happen.

But pinning the blame on upwards only rent reviews is missing the root of the problem which you precisely say is greed. You still get exploitation where upwards only rent reviews are not allowed.

Bullseye1

Now that they have brought in a property tax it should be possible to reduce local authority rates (although you do have to ask what exactly does a business get for their money?). Most pay their own water supply and rubbish collection.

steddyeddy

Clerys were also hit by high rents. Luckily they were saved though as I have a particular soft spot for clerys.

CLERYS, THE 159-YEAR-OLD department store on Dublin’s O’Connell Street, has been sold to an American private equity group, just hours after it was placed into receivership.
The move means that almost 350 people who work at the iconic store will keep their jobs after the store was bought by investment group Gordon Brothers.
The giant department store will continue to trade as usual.
However Guineys & Co, the nearby department store on Dublin’s Talbot Street which is a sister shop to Clerys, has been put into liquidation and will close down. Clerys’ two retail park shops in Leopardstown and Naas are also to close.
A total of 29 jobs will be lost.
The Clerys Home Furnishings store in Blanchardstown in Dublin closed on 16 September with the loss of 16 jobs.
Clerys had been struggling financially in recent years with declining footfall in its flagship store and high rents on its retail park shops.
Clerys opened in 1853 and was one of the world’s first purpose built department stores. It was purchased by the Guiney family in 1941.
Michael Guiney stores, which are a separate company, are not affected.

dj jarvis

steddyeddy wrote: »

Becuase it happens that doesn't make it ok.

do you want a capitalist state or a communist one?
because if you have a problem with market forces , then im afraid its off to NK for you , if you dont then you have to deal with the **** that flows your way , no one forces you to sign upward only rent contracts
your Italian mate did and is now hinging about it , real shame his business has to close , but them are the breaks

really , did he not read, or did his solicitor not read before they signed it?
his lack of business acumen has cost him unfortunately

not wanting to sound harsh , but that is just how it works

Pottler

J Bourke wrote: »

Its not capitalism either, its stupidity. Rather than having some amount of rent, the landlord now has NO rent. :rolleyes:

Agree fully. They jack the rent on the existing, stable tennant, tennant tries to negotiate, no go, tennant leaves, and Landlord, (the abject, greedy, dumb spanner)then proceedes to rent it to "pop-up shops" for buttons, another tennant after a long and expensive wait and at hugely reduced terms, or a charity at peppercorn rent. Just how dumb exactly are these landlords?

Before anyone says they don't want to reduce the rent to preserve the properties value, shaddup, they nearly always end up renting it again at hugely reduced rates and with crappy tenants, crappy shopfronts, or else it's empty and starts to rot. Pure, dumb, Greed. BTW DJ, an upward only review can be just 1c added to the last annual rent roll, fyi. Adding 40% is not compulsory, it's just greedy and shortsighted. I've seen this happen so many times, you need to ask just how thick these landlords are.

Agricola

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the landlords own the property, why shouldnt they be allowed set the prices


Im thinking of selling my old xbox. I might put it up on adverts for five thousand euro. why not.

Why not have a system where tenants cannot be extorted at the whim of landlords instead. It doesnt have to be all a one way street where either the tenants or the landlords have the upper hand all the time.
This unbridled "I own it so I charge what I like" is fine in many areas of life but when it comes to peoples homes or businesses, there must be laws in place to prevent people who are already under massive financial pressure from getting bled dry by unscrupulous landlords.

GKidd

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well all over Dublin rents have forced out dublin business owners which has been a further blow to the economy. Do you not think that Dublin retail owners have a problem with high rents.

I don't see your point here. If you are making a point you're not making it very well. If they can't afford the rent then close or move somewhere cheaper. The landlord doesn't owe them anything. Rent is a variable commodity. The business owner entered into a written agreement when signing the lease knowing full well what the risks were. If they didn't then they should not be in business.

Should the landlord wish to alter the arrangement when the lease expires then the tenant is left with 2 options...

What part of this is troubling you?

KyussBishop

There are a couple of instances I've heard of (purely anecdotal), of building owners in around the city center receiving an offer for their building, and being threatened with violence or vandalism (i.e. arson), if they don't sell it on.

Property acquisition, particularly in around the city center, is a pretty simple/obvious way to build up a racket/cabal, that can extort money out of business; these rent shenanigans would fit in nicely as part of the logical conclusion of that kind of racket.

WoollyRedHat

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the landlords own the property, why shouldnt they be allowed set the prices


Im thinking of selling my old xbox. I might put it up on adverts for five thousand euro. why not.

You are free to do so, but your adamancy to refuse to drop the asking price means that nobody really benefits, you're stuck with an xbox which is all the while losing value furthermore.

I think that when you allow a system to prosper where only upward rising rents are allowed, then down the line you are bound to hit a cliff, with the landlords refusing to see that driving the car off the cliff with the tenant inside it ****s them both, the landlord receives 0 rental income, as opposed to trying to negiotate both with the bank ( in the case of high mortgages) and the tenant, rather than having the premises completely empty, like most become after an existing, long standing tenant leaves.

dj jarvis wrote: »

do you want a capitalist state or a communist one?
because if you have a problem with market forces , then im afraid its off to NK for you , if you dont then you have to deal with the **** that flows your way , no one forces you to sign upward only rent contracts
your Italian mate did and is now hinging about it , real shame his business has to close , but them are the breaks

really , did he not read, or did his solicitor not read before they signed it?
his lack of business acumen has cost him unfortunately

not wanting to sound harsh , but that is just how it works

First of all that's a bit of a stretch, government does and has involved itself in economic forces, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. NAMA could be regard as the latter. In any case, regulation within the market does not make it communist, it's still capitalism. You want pure capitalism, then you reverse the clock a hundred years or so... except that people like Hoover in U.S.A did it back then, and it didn't work out too well in the end.

Pottler

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are a couple of instances I've heard of (purely anecdotal), of building owners in around the city center receiving an offer for their building, and being threatened with violence or vandalism (i.e. arson), if they don't sell it on.

Property acquisition, particularly in around the city center, is a pretty simple/obvious way to build up a racket/cabal, that can extort money out of business; these rent shenanigans would fit in nicely as part of the logical conclusion of that kind of racket.

It happens, but it's rare. I can see this issue from both sides, my family rent city center shops, fairly well known ones, and rent is a huge cost, a landlord stepping in at renewal with a dopey level of upward renewal has the power to bring the shutters down.

Equally, I own property, so I can see what the issues are from both sides. But, to jack rent on a good paying tenant, forcing them to close, is just plain dumb bad business. Nothing else at all. Utter blind greed, tinged with ruthlessness.

I have also listened to a fair few landlords whinging at me that they have done this, tenant left and now they are struggling to get ANY paying tenant in. My usual response is "Good, tough shyte, what goes around comes around pal". The muppets usually end up re-letting the premises at hugely reduced rates and whinging about how hard it is to get good tennants. WTF is that all about?

Einhard

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but the borrow a phrase from Spock (I apologise) the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. If he forces out businesses people lose their jobs and the economy suffers when people cant spend their money there. The economy cant suffer because a landlord needs to pay a excessive mortgage.

But one can argue that if the landlord goes bust, then all the people he owes money to lose out too and the economy takes a hit. It's too easy to blame the landlords, when quite often they need to meet huge payments on their loans. What's needed is serious reform of the bankruptcy legislation in this country and/or debt/forgiveness. Just as the tenant has to pay his bills, so too does the landlord.

GRMA wrote: »

So its ok for landlords to jack up rents if they are stuck for a few bob, to bleed their tenants dry?

Of course it's greed. It's exploitation.

So it's ok for the tenant to increase their prices if they have to pay the bills?

To state "if they are stuck for a few bob" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the matter. Being forced into bankruptcy is a tad more extreme than being stuck for a few bob, and you well know it.

One of the problems with this country is people are always looking out for an easy target to last out at. it saves them actually having to take a close look a problem. And landlords now are the easy target. God forbid we actually try to take an objective look at the situation and figure out a solution that works for all- no, far easier to just attack and condemn without taking on board the very real issues on all sides.

dj jarvis

Pottler wrote: »

Agree fully. They jack the rent on the existing, stable tennant, tennant tries to negotiate, no go, tennant leaves, and Landlord, (the abject, greedy, dumb spanner)then proceedes to rent it to "pop-up shops" for buttons, another tennant after a long and expensive wait and at hugely reduced terms, or a charity at peppercorn rent. Just how dumb exactly are these landlords?

Before anyone says they don't want to reduce the rent to preserve the properties value, shaddup, they nearly always end up renting it again at hugely reduced rates and with crappy tenants, crappy shopfronts, or else it's empty and starts to rot. Pure, dumb, Greed. BTW DJ, an upward only review can be just 1c added to the last annual rent roll, fyi. Adding 40% is not compulsory, it's just greedy and shortsighted. I've seen this happen so many times, you need to ask just how thick these landlords are.

i fully understand that concept , but its still upwards not down , that is the point of the thread

i dont agree with it at all , think its counter productive , but thats how it is + and a lot of assumptions are being made about premises being left idol for a eternity , just not the case
my local SC have had LOTS of business come and go in the last 2 years , and only one unit has taken longer than 4 months to get tenants
so i suppose its all location location location

dont like the contract - dont renew and move on , why whinge about it

dj jarvis

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont see how this is surprising. There are many shops that have closed due to high rents. The owner is moving because to another area with better rents.

did i miss something in a post , because that is the first time i have seen that mentioned that he was moving and re opening , as far as i read the thread , he was shutting up shop for good can, someone highlight that for me?

Pottler

Einhard wrote: »

One of the problems with this country is people are always looking out for an easy target to last out at. it saves them actually having to take a close look a problem. And landlords now are the easy target. God forbid we actually try to take an objective look at the situation and figure out a solution that works for all- no, far easier to just attack and condemn without taking on board the very real issues on all sides.

Sorry Einhard, can't agree, like I said, the units get rented out again, usually at a much reduced rate. You are confusing the issue. You are mixing up greed with commercial pressures, they're not the same. A fair few of the lads I know who are at this don't have mortgages, they've owned the units outright from the beginning. As for "the Landlords costs??" Do you know many landlords? They're not too big on incurring costs, of any kind.

dj jarvis

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

You are free to do so, but your adamancy to refuse to drop the asking price means that nobody really benefits, you're stuck with an xbox which is all the while losing value furthermore.

I think that when you allow a system to prosper where only upward rising rents are allowed, then down the line you are bound to hit a cliff, with the landlords refusing to see that driving the car off the cliff with the tenant inside it ****s them both, the landlord receives 0 rental income, as opposed to trying to negiotate both with the bank ( in the case of high mortgages) and the tenant, rather than having the premises completely empty, like most become after an existing, long standing tenant leaves.



First of all that's a bit of a stretch, government does and has involved itself in economic forces, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. NAMA could be regard as the latter. In any case, regulation within the market does not make it communist, it's still capitalism. You want pure capitalism, then you reverse the clock a hundred years or so... except that people like Hoover in U.S.A did it back then, and it didn't work out too well in the end.

well thats all dandy,
but the current government already got advice from the AG that they can not change it retroactively , only new contracts can be affected ,
so im really missing your point , they looked at it and cant do anything

so what is the point of whinging about it
also i understand plenty about mccarthyism and j edgar hoover, but what has that go to do with what i said , i think you misunderstood me maybe

Einhard

Pottler wrote: »

Sorry Einhard, can't agree, like I said, the units get rented out again, usually at a much reduced rate. You are confusing the issue. You are mixing up greed with commercial pressures, they're not the same. A fair few of the lads I know who are at this don't have mortgages, they've owned the units outright from the beginning. As for "the Landlords costs??" Do you know many landlords? They're not too big on incurring costs, of any kind.

I'm not mixing anything up, or confusing any issues. The fact is that the OP claimed that the landlord in question was being greedy. My point is, that the OP doesn't know the facts of the situation. The landlord's primary motivation could indeed be greed, in which case he's to be condemned. However, it's quite likely that, having secured a massive mortgage to pay for the property, and possibly having used his family home and other assets as security, he now wishes to avoid bankruptcy and ruin. That puts things in an entirely different light, but people deliberately ignore that facet because it's easier to erect targets and then lash out at them.

As for costs- the biggest cost a landlord will face is their mortgage.

gurramok

So a landlord took out a Celtic tiger mortgage, and how exactly is that the tenants problem? If a landlord cannot sustain his business in a capitalist market, he is not fit to be a landlord.