Rent Prices are Crazy

Senecio

gaius c wrote: »

Thanks for the post.
Do you mind if I ask if you were in Sydney or another part of Oz?
Cost of living in some parts of Oz is ridonculous so us being even more expensive is not a good look.

I was in Brisbane. Understand Sydney and other cities are exorbitantly priced.

However I've just returned home for a holiday and definitely noticed an increase in costs since I've been in Dublin. Housing is still definitely more affordable but $4 for a 600ml bottle of coke in a garage!

It's sad really as this is where I want to live but I have to look to other countries to achieve my financial goals. Dublin is a very affordable city in every other aspect except housing. I guess that's what happens when you have a concentration of jobs in one place and a dead construction industry for the last 7 years.

quadrifoglio verde

Potatoeman wrote: »

No pictures for the seconds and the first is one small room with a single bed. Look at the distance from the TV to the bed.

And it's also weekly. 110 weekly works out at 5720.
Most people when they see 110 weekly automatically assume 4x110 which is 440 monthly. That works out at 5280
Big difference.

rawn

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

And it's also weekly. 110 weekly works out at 5720.
Most people when they see 110 weekly automatically assume 4x110 which is 440 monthly. That works out at 5280
Big difference.

stateofflux

sm171 wrote: »

Where are you looking to rent? I'm looking at central areas close to CC Drumcondra Glasnevin etc so that does make it more difficult. The €600pm includes an en suite I should say which is a bit of a help when you are forced to share!

Drumswan - there really is no choice but to share unless you want a long commute.

€600 is at at the high end for a house share. i would not pay that much for sharing when there are studio's available for the same price way closer to the centre

quadrifoglio verde

rawn wrote: »

What are you confused about?
110 x52 is 5720. Most people automatically think 4 weeks will be a months rent.

sm171

stateofflux wrote: »

€600 is at at the high end for a house share. i would not pay that much for sharing when there are studio's available for the same price way closer to the centre

I really could not live in a studio. And most if them in that area are terrible quality. Call me picky if you like!

quadrifoglio verde

sm171 wrote: »

I really could not live in a studio. And most if them in that area are terrible quality. Call me picky if you like!

I could live in a studio, provided its what I see as a studio (open plan one bedroom apartment) as opposed to what Ireland describes as a studio (room in a georgian house with a microwave and shower shoved into two corners and a crying chair as my sitting room)

This is a studio


This is depression and its nowhere near the bad studios.

sm171

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

I could live in a studio, provided its what I see as a studio (open plan one bedroom apartment) as opposed to what Ireland describes as a studio (room in a georgian house with a microwave and shower shoved into two corners and a crying chair as my sitting room)

I could live in a big studio. Alas, as you say we don't have those in Dublin.

qwertyabcd

the studios we have are a result of developer cramming as much into one building as possible, plus call me picky but I expect a double bed and proper cooking facilities, and a decent bathroom/ shower room if I am going to part with at least a third of my income

generalmental

Myself and my wife were renting in Dublin 8 two and a bit years ago. Paying 800€ per month for a crappie little 2 bedroom house that was freezing in the winter. He wanted an increase of 150 per month wasn't having any of it. So decided to move 50 minutes drive from the red cow and got a LOVELY warm well built no holes 2 bedroom house for 400€ a month.
Even with commute still saving a fortune.

Moral of the story OP you have options not all of them are good options but you at least have them there are 14 families a day being evicted due to rising rents.

who_ru

generalmental wrote: »

Moral of the story OP you have options not all of them are good options but you at least have them there are 14 families a day being evicted due to rising rents.

while people years behind in their mortgages are still in place, and BTL investors pocketing rents and making no payments on mortgages. i dont see a single politician speaking out about extortinate rents. wonder why?

generalmental

who_ru wrote: »

while people years behind in their mortgages are still in place, and BTL investors pocketing rents and making no payments on mortgages. i dont see a single politician speaking out about extortinate rents. wonder why?

I do wonder why but if I was to write all my ramblings in here I would be told I was a lunatic and since I have passed my limit of being called a lunatic for today, will you tell me why you think this is.

who_ru

generalmental wrote: »

I do wonder why but if I was to write all my ramblings in here I would be told I was a lunatic and since I have passed my limit of being called a lunatic for today, will you tell me why you think this is.

votes. the general view is that property owners tend to vote, renters are more transient and tend not to. cynical. that's how they (politicians) operate. their first loyalty is to themselves.

The Spider

who_ru wrote: »

votes. the general view is that property owners tend to vote, renters are more transient and tend not to. cynical. that's how they (politicians) operate. their first loyalty is to themselves.

Nope, either way someone who owns a property owns it, regardless of the loan to the bank. Renters need to realise they are paying for a service, in the same way you pay for any service, if you can't pay you'll be cut off.

Complaining about waiting for repos is a fools game, that's a debt dispute not a service dispute. If you don't pay the esb they'll cut you off, if you have a loan on a car, you look on the amount owed and ability to repay.

Taking assets is a last resort, overhead from the bank trying to sell, staff dedicated to it etc.. Costs all adds up.

On a side note 600 a month is cheap for a room in a shared house, especially with en suite, I don't think I ever paid less than 600 post 2001 for a room in a shared house.

Tarzana

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

And it's also weekly. 110 weekly works out at 5720.
Most people when they see 110 weekly automatically assume 4x110 which is 440 monthly. That works out at 5280
Big difference.

Yeah, I've seen ads where the rent is quoted at a weekly price, then in the description it's claimed the monthly rent is one week x 4. A lot of people wouldn't even question that. But their yearly rent bill will be a lot higher than they think.

murphaph

Senecio wrote: »

Dublin is a very affordable city in every other aspect except housing. I guess that's what happens when you have a concentration of jobs in one place and a dead construction industry for the last 7 years.

It's also a function of the type of housing constructed. If people could "hack" apartment living and apartments of all shapes and sizes were built then housing would be much cheaper. A typical Dublin semi detached uses as much land as several equivalently sized apartments. This land is then gone for decades and consequently remaining building land becomes rarer faster.

Senecio

murphaph wrote: »

It's also a function of the type of housing constructed. If people could "hack" apartment living and apartments of all shapes and sizes were built then housing would be much cheaper. A typical Dublin semi detached uses as much land as several equivalently sized apartments. This land is then gone for decades and consequently remaining building land becomes rarer faster.

No disagreement from me. I'd have no problem buying an apartment, just not one of the 30+ that I've viewed in Dublin over the last 9 months and I've been looking at the 270K plus bracket. The typical Dublin property developers idea of an apartment and mine are two different things.

Potatoeman

The Spider wrote: »

Nope, either way someone who owns a property owns it, regardless of the loan to the bank. Renters need to realise they are paying for a service, in the same way you pay for any service, if you can't pay you'll be cut off.

Complaining about waiting for repos is a fools game, that's a debt dispute not a service dispute. If you don't pay the esb they'll cut you off, if you have a loan on a car, you look on the amount owed and ability to repay.

Taking assets is a last resort, overhead from the bank trying to sell, staff dedicated to it etc.. Costs all adds up.

On a side note 600 a month is cheap for a room in a shared house, especially with en suite, I don't think I ever paid less than 600 post 2001 for a room in a shared house.

Depends on the situation. I know someone that had a solicitor knock on the door of their rented house to inform them it was being reposesed. No payments had been paid in two years. He stopped paying rent and signed a new lease with the bank in two months.

Secondly the lesson being learned is that we have a two tier system. You buy and are protected. You rent and you are at the whims of the market. Its the perfect setup for another boom. During the boom I looked at house prices and thought they were growing way too fast and what would I do if I lost my job. More fool me. We have NAMA to protect house prices and people not paying mortgages are staying in properties they are not paying for. Its not a normal market.

Idbatterim

What are the overpaid wasters in government proposing as a response? As an example, a mostly 8-10 story version of an irish "canary wharf" on prime dockland sites! These idiots dont have the vision to look past their next paypacket, statesmen they sure aren't!

The Spider

Potatoeman wrote: »

Depends on the situation. I know someone that had a solicitor knock on the door of their rented house to inform them it was being reposesed. No payments had been paid in two years. He stopped paying rent and signed a new lease with the bank in two months.

Secondly the lesson being learned is that we have a two tier system. You buy and are protected. You rent and you are at the whims of the market. Its the perfect setup for another boom. During the boom I looked at house prices and thought they were growing way too fast and what would I do if I lost my job. More fool me. We have NAMA to protect house prices and people not paying mortgages are staying in properties they are not paying for. Its not a normal market.

But do you not see there's nothing unfair in it? It's how the world works you rent, you sign a lease for an agreed amount of time at an agreed rent, in an agreed property and that's it that's as far as your concerns as a renter go, in the majority of cases (barring unfurnished), you're renting plates, knives, forks, furniture, beds and sometimes a tv, it's vastly different to someone who owns a property.

A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the lessee (user) to pay the lessor (owner) for use of an asset.[1]

Wikipedia's definition, in other words what the owner owes or doesn't owe is none of your business, you pay for use of their asset.

RedPandaDan

The Spider wrote: »

But do you not see there's nothing unfair in it? It's how the world works you rent, you sign a lease for an agreed amount of time at an agreed rent, in an agreed property and that's it that's as far as your concerns as a renter go, in the majority of cases (barring unfurnished), you're renting plates, knives, forks, furniture, beds and sometimes a tv, it's vastly different to someone who owns a property.

A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the lessee (user) to pay the lessor (owner) for use of an asset.[1]

Wikipedia's definition, in other words what the owner owes or doesn't owe is none of your business, you pay for use of their asset.

He doesn't seem to be talking so much about the eviction of non-paying tenants (although I think the industry does need a bit of reform) as much as the non-eviction of non-paying borrowers. Surely you can see why people may have issues with the way the game is currently set up?

As it stands, one of the most irresponsible things you can do in Ireland is to only borrow what you can afford. The mere act of buying a property is more important than being able to pay for it, and until you do buy a property it seems mostly accepted that you should expect to be treated like a second class citizen.

The Spider

RedPandaDan wrote: »

He doesn't seem to be talking so much about the eviction of non-paying tenants (although I think the industry does need a bit of reform) as much as the non-eviction of non-paying borrowers. Surely you can see why people may have issues with the way the game is currently set up?

As it stands, one of the most irresponsible things you can do in Ireland is to only borrow what you can afford. The mere act of buying a property is more important than being able to pay for it, and until you do buy a property it seems mostly accepted that you should expect to be treated like a second class citizen.

But they're two different things, the bank took on risk when it lent to borrowers, irregardless. That's the banks risk, and to be honest paying for a service is completely different to buying a property. The mere act of buying it sure, but again that's no ones business but the buyer and the bank.

People feel treated like second class citizens because they rent? No they feel like second class citizens because they want a New York style studio apartment in the center of the city for less than 900 euro's a month.

That is never going to happen, in all the years I lived in Dublin it never happened, except a few really lucky people who knew someone.

Rents are still well below 2007 levels, in fact I was paying 650 a month in a shared house in 2002, when adjusted for inflation that's now 768 euro's on more than half the salary I earn now.

Rents are less now than they've been in the past, bar 2009-2011

drumswan

The Spider wrote: »

But they're two different things, the bank took on risk when it lent to borrowers, irregardless. That's the banks risk, and to be honest paying for a service is completely different to buying a property. The mere act of buying it sure, but again that's no ones business but the buyer and the bank.

They are not two different things, one is paying money to a bank to live in a house, the other is paying money to a landlord to live in a house.

If you stop doing the former you can stay in the property, if you do the latter you will be evicted.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

They are not two different things, one is paying money to a bank to live in a house, the other is paying money to a landlord to live in a house.

If you stop doing the former you can stay in the property, if you do the latter you will be evicted.

Again what's so hard to understand here? that's none of your business, if you stop paying a hotel, you'll be out on your ear, if the hotel can't meet it's debt obligations, a payment plan will be found and closing it down will be a last resort.

Staying in a hotel = service

Staying in a holiday home = service

Renting on a years lease = service

Getting UPC = service

Phone use = service

The above are services, you can change any of them at any time you like within the terms of the contract.

Completely different to owning property.

drumswan

Its anyone who wants to see a properly functioning markets business thanks, especially considering we own the banks.

Paying interest on a mortgage is paying for a service. This bizarre Irish notion that because a residential property is involved everything takes on some magical mystical quality and that owning property is "completely different" to say, buying a car on hire purchase, is laughable.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

Its anyone who wants to see a properly functioning markets business thanks, especially considering we own the banks.

Paying interest on a mortgage is paying for a service. This bizarre Irish notion that because a residential property is involved everything takes on some magical mystical quality and that owning property is "completely different" to say, buying a car on hire purchase, is laughable.

People have their houses repossessed, it just takes longer, and the banks aren't going to repossess a house that's worth less than the loan, it's been documented that due to rising prices more houses are being repossessed as the houses can now achieve what's owed on the open market.

So for more repossessions, you need prices to continue to rise, it's catch 22.

But apart from that, talking about something that's outside of your control is silly, it's like people who've been priced out of South Dublin complaining instead of looking to the next affordable area, all they'll do is complain and then the next affordable area is out of reach.

I was going to say you'll find areas in Dublin where a 2 bed is less than a grand, but I checked not much going at all, maybe it's time to start thinking about renting in a commuter town and getting the bus in, if your salary doesn't allow you to rent in the city?

drumswan

The Spider wrote: »

I was going to say you'll find areas in Dublin where a 2 bed is less than a grand, but I checked not much going at all, maybe it's time to start thinking about renting in a commuter town and getting the bus in, if your salary doesn't allow you to rent in the city?

My salary does allow me to live in the city thanks, spare me the condescension.

Its just that, and this might amaze you, people would rather spend their income on other things than exorbitant rent. Its just more cash which would be better used in the wider economy being sucked into the black hole that is our dysfunctional property sector.

Even those of us who deliberately avoided buying get the pleasure of lining the pockets of our canny amateur landlord class.

The Spider

drumswan wrote: »

My salary does allow me to live in the city thanks, spare me the condescension.

Its just that, and this might amaze you, people would rather spend their income on other things than exorbitant rent. Its just more cash which would be better used in the wider economy being sucked into the black hole that is our dysfunctional property sector.

Even those of us who deliberately avoided buying get the pleasure of lining the pockets of our canny amateur landlord class.

Usual nonsense, them and us, there is no them and us, all these names canny's vi's etc like there was a big group that had regular meetings. :rolleyes:

I'd rather spend my money on fancy holidays than on my mortgage, I'd rather spend my petrol money on restaurants.

Everyone would rather spend their money on thing's they'd like to do rather than things they have to do.

Anyway if you're worried that not enough money is going into the economy, have no fear, when your landlord increases the rent, it's highly likely that they're spending the money in the economy instead, so that's alright.

Eldarion

drumswan wrote: »

Its just that, and this might amaze you, people would rather spend their income on other things than exorbitant rent.

Its just more cash which would be better used in the wider economy being sucked into the black hole that is our dysfunctional property sector.

This might also be condescending to you as well but rent prices are what they are BECAUSE people would rather pay that amount than live elsewhere.

Your black hole analogy is without merit as well, it's not being sucked away to nothing, it's payment for a service and is subject to tax. The very basis of a functioning market.

To get back to your point about interest, no it is not paying for a service. It's a cost of credit. Like it or not there is a world of difference between asset ownership and paying for a service.

There are people who take out unsecured loans to pay for houses too if the principle is low enough to allow them to do so. If they fail to make payments on that loan, the lender has NO claim directly on that specific asset purchased with that loan, only that they have a debtor who is late on repayments.

RedPandaDan

The Spider wrote: »

But they're two different things, the bank took on risk when it lent to borrowers, irregardless. That's the banks risk, and to be honest paying for a service is completely different to buying a property. The mere act of buying it sure, but again that's no ones business but the buyer and the bank.

While it may not be anyones business on an individual level, as groups (buyers vs renters) it is very important for any long term plans you make. Knowing that no matter what the circumstances are you will be better treated by banks and governments as a buyer in default than a renter in default greatly distorts economic incentives of individuals and a surefire way to further economic problems in future (problems which can be mitigated by buying a house you cannot afford! )