Landlords market

alias no.9

Potatoeman wrote: »

Most of the property cheerleaders are those that benefit from high house prices and would not be able to afford the property they are currently living in if they were entering the market today. They are also the most vocal against property tax based on house prices.

Who is cheerleading? There's a constrained supply right now caused by a lack of credit to fund new development and a lack of repossessions where repayments aren't being made, this needs to be addressed but affordability has always been an issue and always will. There's always people better off than you that you'll need to make sacrifices to compete with for the house you want and someone less well off than you going to try and compete with you by making more sacrifices than you, at least in urban centres anyway.

The comments about someone not being able to afford the same house now is bollix because it wasn't the same house back when they bought it. Take an average 3 bed semi built in Dublin 16 in the late 1970s, what they bought was a new house in a new estate in a heretofore unknown suburb. Today it's probably been substantially upgraded and the estate and area have matured. They couldn't afford to buy in the earlier suburbs of Dublin 4, 6 and 14. There's a certain amount of luck in the way a community matures, but a lot of it is down to the people who live there, they make it more desirable and more valuable by being good neighbours.

For the record, I'm all for a property tax but I think it should be split in two, a site value tax paid by the owner to encourage the efficient use of land in residential areas and an occupancy tax based on the size of the house, paid by the residents, be they owners or tenants, to encourage the efficient use of the current housing stock.

Crusades

alias no.9 wrote: »

Who is cheerleading? There's a constrained supply right now caused by a lack of credit to fund new development and a lack of repossessions where repayments aren't being made, this needs to be addressed but affordability has always been an issue and always will. There's always people better off than you that you'll need to make sacrifices to compete with for the house you want and someone less well off than you going to try and compete with you by making more sacrifices than you, at least in urban centres anyway.

The comments about someone not being able to afford the same house now is bollix because it wasn't the same house back when they bought it. Take an average 3 bed semi built in Dublin 16 in the late 1970s, what they bought was a new house in a new estate in a heretofore unknown suburb. Today it's probably been substantially upgraded and the estate and area have matured. They couldn't afford to buy in the earlier suburbs of Dublin 4, 6 and 14. There's a certain amount of luck in the way a community matures, but a lot of it is down to the people who live there, they make it more desirable and more valuable by being good neighbours.

For the record, I'm all for a property tax but I think it should be split in two, a site value tax paid by the owner to encourage the efficient use of land in residential areas and an occupancy tax based on the size of the house, paid by the residents, be they owners or tenants, to encourage the efficient use of the current housing stock.

Do you think Adamstown will "mature"?

Do you think Balbriggan will "mature"?

Do you think the Rinkeby district of Stockholm will magically "mature" one of these years?

These places involve a hefty fuel bill and 3 hours in the car each day wouldn't be unusual (assuming you work).

So what was the commute time/fuel bill for living in Ranelagh 30 years ago?
Was the normal mortgage term 20 or 35 back then do you think?
Were these mortgages given to single or double income households?
What is the square footage of your average 3-bed semi-D in Ranelagh compared to a "duplex" in Adamstown?

Can you please admit that living standards for ordinary workers have declined.

Only when we have accepted that living standards have declined can we go about improving living standards and start changing policy so that workers are rewarded for their labour.

MouseTail

Are you seriously holding up the early 1980s as a period where ordinary workers thrived? Your father as a civil servant, and you as the child of one, may have done so. But it was a horrid, bleak time of great struggles, economically and socially for the ordinary worker.

alias no.9

Crusades wrote: »

Do you think Adamstown will "mature"?

Do you think Balbriggan will "mature"?

Do you think the Rinkeby district of Stockholm will magically "mature" one of these years?

These places involve a hefty fuel bill and 3 hours in the car each day wouldn't be unusual (assuming you work).

So what was the commute time/fuel bill for living in Ranelagh 30 years ago?
Was the normal mortgage term 20 or 35 back then do you think?
Were these mortgages given to single or double income households?
What is the square footage of your average 3-bed semi-D in Ranelagh compared to a "duplex" in Adamstown?

Can you please admit that living standards for ordinary workers have declined.

Only when we have accepted that living standards have declined can we go about improving living standards and start changing policy so that workers are rewarded for their labour.

Did anyone know whether the sprawl of estates in D16 that were built without shops, schools or even roads in the '70s would mature? It was a gamble and what's more the floor area of the typical 3 bed is not that different than you'll find in Adamstown, but you've clearly decided you're too good for Adamstown or Balbriggan already, have you ever been in either?

Adamstown or wherever will mature as well as the people who settle there want it to. They've already got better services than D16 had in the '70s, schools, shops, rail connection to Heuston and will be the backbone of Dart Underground if it's ever built. Right now Heuston is 15 to 20 minutes from Adamstown and Balbriggan is 35 to 45 minutes from Connolly or is public transport beneath you too?

Edit... Finally, while I can't testify to it first hand, I'm told Ranelagh was a bit of a kip in the '70s and '80s.

copey

It's always been a landlords market

Crusades

alias no.9 wrote: »

Did anyone know whether the sprawl of estates in D16 that were built without shops, schools or even roads in the '70s would mature? It was a gamble and what's more the floor area of the typical 3 bed is not that different than you'll find in Adamstown, but you've clearly decided you're too good for Adamstown or Balbriggan already, have you ever been in either?

Adamstown or wherever will mature as well as the people who settle there want it to. They've already got better services than D16 had in the '70s, schools, shops, rail connection to Heuston and will be the backbone of Dart Underground if it's ever built. Right now Heuston is 15 to 20 minutes from Adamstown and Balbriggan is 35 to 45 minutes from Connolly or is public transport beneath you too?

Edit... Finally, while I can't testify to it first hand, I'm told Ranelagh was a bit of a kip in the '70s and '80s.

I wouldn't want to live within earshot of Goatstown either.

And besides, the commute to and from Balbriggan and Adamstown would be too much for me. I like the comfort of my own car (how dare I).

Finally, I believe in surrounding yourself with positive, successful people who work and are good at what they do. Success breeds success. This is an important lesson I want to teach my kids and I want them to grow up surrounded by positive people - not scroungers, welfare tourists and the work shy.

alias no.9

Crusades wrote: »

I wouldn't want to live within earshot of Goatstown either.

And besides, the commute to and from Balbriggan and Adamstown would be too much for me. I like the comfort of my own car (how dare I).

Finally, I believe in surrounding yourself with positive, successful people who work and are good at what they do. Success breeds success. This is an important lesson I want to teach my kids and I want them to grow up surrounded by positive people - not scroungers, welfare tourists and the work shy.

I hope you find the success you need to mix in the circles you think you should be in but it may not be all that you think it will be.

Crusades

alias no.9 wrote: »

I hope you find the success you need to mix in the circles you think you should be in but it may not be all that you think it will be.

What circles do you think I should be in?

MouseTail

Crusades wrote: »

I wouldn't want to live within earshot of Goatstown either.

And besides, the commute to and from Balbriggan and Adamstown would be too much for me. I like the comfort of my own car (how dare I).

Finally, I believe in surrounding yourself with positive, successful people who work and are good at what they do. Success breeds success. This is an important lesson I want to teach my kids and I want them to grow up surrounded by positive people - not scroungers, welfare tourists and the work shy.

How petit bourgeoisie.

alias no.9

Crusades wrote: »

What circles do you think I should be in?

I don't know, just that they clearly don't live anywhere that will need a little bit of effort from the residents to build a community, instant gratification is likely to be the order of the day.

Potatoeman

alias no.9 wrote: »

Who is cheerleading? There's a constrained supply right now caused by a lack of credit to fund new development and a lack of repossessions where repayments aren't being made, this needs to be addressed but affordability has always been an issue and always will. There's always people better off than you that you'll need to make sacrifices to compete with for the house you want and someone less well off than you going to try and compete with you by making more sacrifices than you, at least in urban centres anyway.

The comments about someone not being able to afford the same house now is bollix because it wasn't the same house back when they bought it. Take an average 3 bed semi built in Dublin 16 in the late 1970s, what they bought was a new house in a new estate in a heretofore unknown suburb. Today it's probably been substantially upgraded and the estate and area have matured. They couldn't afford to buy in the earlier suburbs of Dublin 4, 6 and 14. There's a certain amount of luck in the way a community matures, but a lot of it is down to the people who live there, they make it more desirable and more valuable by being good neighbours.

For the record, I'm all for a property tax but I think it should be split in two, a site value tax paid by the owner to encourage the efficient use of land in residential areas and an occupancy tax based on the size of the house, paid by the residents, be they owners or tenants, to encourage the efficient use of the current housing stock.

Yes the property market is broken. It's a pyramid scheme that the government are determined to keep going at the expense of those that enter it later. I'm in the process of buying at the moment and still think I'm overpaying but the reality is if I'm going to buy I can't stay out of it any longer.

I have come across so many people that have their property from before the boom that keep saying that's just the price of property, the same thing being said during the boom. The simple fact is that these people would not be able to buy the property they are in now on the salary they are on. This wouldn't be an issue if we had a stable property market but I won't hold my breath for that.

Crusades

MouseTail wrote: »

How petit bourgeoisie.

I continue to strive to make the lives of the people I care about better.

The fact is that the statistics aren't good in certain areas and I don't want the people I care about to become another statistic.

I make no apologies for continuing to strive. You can sneer at my Ford car and my boring job and my M&S suit all you like.

Crusades

alias no.9 wrote: »

I don't know, just that they clearly don't live anywhere that will need a little bit of effort from the residents to build a community, instant gratification is likely to be the order of the day.

You were pretty sure of yourself in your previous post.

Now you're on about it being "instant gratification" to want to live in a quiet and law abiding area.

alias no.9

Potatoeman wrote: »

Yes the property market is broken. It's a pyramid scheme that the government are determined to keep going at the expense of those that enter it later. I'm in the process of buying at the moment and still think I'm overpaying but the reality is if I'm going to buy I can't stay out of it any longer.

I have come across so many people that have their property from before the boom that keep saying that's just the price of property, the same thing being said during the boom. The simple fact is that these people would not be able to buy the property they are in now on the salary they are on. This wouldn't be an issue if we had a stable property market but I won't hold my breath for that.

Maybe not, but chances are that at the time they bought, they looked at other people who bought years previous to them and thought the same thing.

Houses are not very liquid as assets, they don't change hands very often. Once an area settles, families stay for a generation or more, so the only time any area has plentiful supply is when new estates are being built, but new developments seem to be considered toxic and they have to incur the full economic cost of building to today's building regulations. Once most of the land in an area is developed, supply is automatically constrained, it's not really a conspiracy, you just can't move houses around.

Sure there's a little bit of market rigging right now where cheap money from the ECB is enabling banks to ignore massive arrears and not foreclose on the assets but then you see the ****e in carpenterstown a few weeks ago which would make you wonder why they'd bother trying.

For the record I've no time for the the 'Where's my NAMA brigade', there needs to be repossessions and disposals, to help develop a functioning market. No debt write down without surrendering assets, no problem with a quick discharge from bankruptcy once there's nothing hidden from creditors.

alias no.9

Crusades wrote: »

You were pretty sure of yourself in your previous post.

Now you're on about it being "instant gratification" to want to live in a quiet and law abiding area.

You're the one harping on about surrounding yourself with successful people looking down your nose at people who live in Adamstown. You're the one with the plan, the certainty, I just hope it works out for you.

To the best of my knowledge Adamstown is a quiet law abiding area. Can you tell me anything to the contrary?

What you really want is something other people spent time creating, that mature estate wherever it is, but you think it's beneath you to be part of the maturing of one. That's instant gratification in my eyes.

doolox

The government imposed a 75% limit to the tax allowance on interest paid on mortgages on rental property. Also they imposed USC and PRSI on rental income where these were not imposed before.

Without a competitive increase in supply of rental properties, this has put pressure on landlords to increase rents.

The government should have prepared for this by increasing supply of private and public rental houses before grabbing extra taxes off the politically unpopular landlords.

Getting rid of bedsits as "substandard" means that many people are now on the streets, even more substandard accomodation, due to government stupidity capriciousness and ignorance.

Many people have been taxed out of being landlords, many more will go when houses are sold at a large fraction, 80-90% of their buying price.

There are very few landlords coming on the market in big enough numbers to make a real impact on rising rents.

Extra taxes on property, PRTB, agency fees, doubts over who pays water charges in the event of a tenant default, damage and neglect by tenants, public order issues caused by tenants etc are just some of the hassles being a landlord entails and you end up handing over 1/2 your "earnings" to the government although really you have not earned it because the house is only worth 1/2 what you paid for it.

Crusades

alias no.9 wrote: »

You're the one harping on about surrounding yourself with successful people looking down your nose at people who live in Adamstown. You're the one with the plan, the certainty, I just hope it works out for you.

To the best of my knowledge Adamstown is a quiet law abiding area. Can you tell me anything to the contrary?

What you really want is something other people spent time creating, that mature estate wherever it is, but you think it's beneath you to be part of the maturing of one. That's instant gratification in my eyes.

Why are you so chippy?

Why are you going on about housing estates?

Crusades

doolox wrote: »

The government imposed a 75% limit to the tax allowance on interest paid on mortgages on rental property. Also they imposed USC and PRSI on rental income where these were not imposed before.

Without a competitive increase in supply of rental properties, this has put pressure on landlords to increase rents.

The government should have prepared for this by increasing supply of private and public rental houses before grabbing extra taxes off the politically unpopular landlords.

Getting rid of bedsits as "substandard" means that many people are now on the streets, even more substandard accomodation, due to government stupidity capriciousness and ignorance.

Many people have been taxed out of being landlords, many more will go when houses are sold at a large fraction, 80-90% of their buying price.

There are very few landlords coming on the market in big enough numbers to make a real impact on rising rents.

Extra taxes on property, PRTB, agency fees, doubts over who pays water charges in the event of a tenant default, damage and neglect by tenants, public order issues caused by tenants etc are just some of the hassles being a landlord entails and you end up handing over 1/2 your "earnings" to the government although really you have not earned it because the house is only worth 1/2 what you paid for it.

Indeed. I think the biggest of those issues is that there is no enforcement of judgements. Even if you have a judgement, the Sheriff are impotent to do anything. The 1916 Land League rent-a-crowd are easy to trigger. You can get away with overholding for months and years in this country. That is a huge risk.

The PRTB is a joke and they delay justice (delayed justice is justice denied).

Friend of mine had an overholding woman in one of his properties. She started out as a rent-a-roomer. Scared off the other rent-a-roomers and she holed herself inside for nearly 18 months. In the end, he had to get the local Mr Fixit to get rid of her down to the womens' refuge and back into the care of the Welfare State. She's probably back doing the exact same to some other unwitting landlord.

doolox

...sector willingly or knowingly. The government need to take this into account with:- Formalised properly run and properly funded courses and qualifications for aspiring landlords so that they know what they are getting into and know what to expect.

A proper bonding system for deposits and other monies securing the property. It is common for many landlords to withold the security deposit at the end of a tenancy for trivial reasons but is also common for tenants to leave places in a deplorable condition on exit.

Proper and timely reporting of all broken appliances and systems so that they can be fixed in good time and in a reasonable tax free cost.

Proper allowances for fixtures, which do not last as long as the 8 yrs you are expected to run the cost of these items over. You are lucky to get a matress or soft furniture or carpet to last 3-4 yrs as people do not clean them.

Pets pets pets!!! Definitely no pets as they are very hard on a house and need constant minding. Smokers also are a no no as no one else wants to take over an ex smokers lodgings after they are gone. It can take a week or two to air out a house after smokers have vacated, costing €250-500 in lost rent.

quietsailor

"lima wrote: »

How about the govt tests you on your ability to be clean and that you only get to rent if you pass a cleanliness test.

Your trying to be cute and demean someone arguing on the landlords side - how about you actually READ what you wrote?

That statement can just as easily be applied to tenants.

lima

quietsailor wrote: »

Your trying to be cute and demean someone arguing on the landlords side - how about you actually READ what you wrote?

That statement can just as easily be applied to tenants.

Your (:)) confusion is confusing me

lima

Just add add here I was being sarcastic about vetting the cleanliness of Tenants.

Because:

Someone's post mentioned wanting the government to ban pets from rental properties. Which is ridiculous.

The_Conductor

Guys- once you personalise your posts- you can't run to me to sort out your squabble when someone throws a personal comment back to you. I'm not impressed.