Why a rental crisis now?

Jasper79

Jasper79 wrote: »

But encouraging more people to be landlords would help the rental market which is where the problems seem to be at present. The mortgage caps and more stringent rules appear to be keeping house prices for owner occupiers relatively stable.

I don't see gains to be made in involving the government more in the construction and sale of houses either. I could see it costing the tax payers more as inefficiencies tend to follow government involvement or increasing house prices even more.

Unfortunately some of the people who don't want to be renting, want to be given their own house at the cost of the state and some of that will be in high cost areas.

I don't think it is automatic that government involvement in the direct provision of housing will inefficient.

There are advantages that come with it: economies of scale, more transparent procurement (vs paying out rent allowance) and whenever the tenant doesn't need the house anymore the state is left with an asset that can be reused.

Jasper79

Deleted User wrote: »

How?

Let's say I decide to become a buy-to-let landlord (not a particularly remote possibility as it happens).

I see a nice looking three bed house that should do the job. I buy it. In the process, a young family hoping to own their first home don't get that house. So they remain renting.

In facy, maybe they can rent from me!

Not sure how that helps anyone though (other than me). If I had been discouraged from stepping into the market, it would have been more likely they would have owned that home and we'd have one less family looking to rent.

Yes but you are not going to leave the house empty, so that family remains renting, and you provide rented accomodation for another family therefore you've reduced demand in the rental sector by 1 family.

Jasper79

Jasper79 wrote: »

Yes but you are not going to leave the house empty, so that family remains renting, and you provide rented accomodation for another family therefore you've reduced demand in the rental sector by 1 family.

???

The family would leave the rental sector by owning their own home. That's my point. Someone deciding to become a landlord doesn't automatically create a house. They simply displace someone else.

Yes, this puts upward pressure on prices (something that causes its own problems of course) that could mean more development, but that's taking a fair amount on trust.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

As I say, if that happens, I would be firmly in favour of the government stepping in and managing the construction and sale of housing - not just social housing.

I think the government has no place getting involved in the construction industry (aside from social housing*) any more than it has any place in the motor industry or the retail sector. Construction etc should remain for the most part a private industry, its heading dangerously in the direction of communism suggesting other wise.

*Social housing is something that we should be looking to reduce the demand for. As I mentioned on another thread people should for the most part be funding their own accommodation and people going out and having a rake of kids and expecting a house need to strongly discouraged from going down that route.

No job - live at home. Cant afford to rent - live at home. Want kids and don't own a house or are not renting your own place with your own money, then no you cant have kids.

CageWager

Surely developers and speculators should be held to a legal "use it or lose it" period when buying development sites. We have far to many speculators who can buy up large tracts of development land and sit on it until the market is on its knees and then drip feed supply under their own tight restrictions to keep demand high and supply low.. It's becoming like the diamond industry.

Jasper79

Deleted User wrote: »

???

The family would leave the rental sector by owning their own home. That's my point. Someone deciding to become a landlord doesn't automatically create a house. They simply displace someone else.

Yes, this puts upward pressure on prices (something that causes its own problems of course) that could mean more development, but that's taking a fair amount on trust.

I get your point, but what % of people currently renting are in a position to buy a property. Are there any reports on what % of rented properties are receiving rent supplement as they obviously would not be in a position to purchase.

caff

CageWager wrote: »

Surely developers and speculators should be held to a legal "use it or lose it" period when buying development sites. We have far to many speculators who can buy up large tracts of development land and sit on it until the market is on its knees and then drip feed supply under their own tight restrictions to keep demand high and supply low.. It's becoming like the diamond industry.

I would agree with this, although also add that government decisions can hugely affect land value also. Simply improving transport to reduce commuting time can open up large areas of existing housing on lower value land to people. House prices are largely fixed its the location that adds value.

JustTheOne

Joe Late Notch wrote: »

I think the government has no place getting involved in the construction industry (aside from social housing*) any more than it has any place in the motor industry or the retail sector. Construction etc should remain for the most part a private industry, its heading dangerously in the direction of communism suggesting other wise.

*Social housing is something that we should be looking to reduce the demand for. As I mentioned on another thread people should for the most part be funding their own accommodation and people going out and having a rake of kids and expecting a house need to strongly discouraged from going down that route.

No job - live at home. Cant afford to rent - live at home. Want kids and don't own a house or are not renting your own place with your own money, then no you cant have kids.

This is the entitlement culture that has crept into Ireland.

The everyone deserves a house brigade.

Nobody deserves anything in life without working for it. They need a dose of reality.

120,000 people on waiting list.

Once you start handing out free houses where does it end?

bigpink

Free houses ras houses rent allilowance healthboard house social housing cheap rent from the council housing how the hell does it work

Lux23

JustTheOne wrote: »

This is the entitlement culture that has crept into Ireland.

The everyone deserves a house brigade.

Nobody deserves anything in life without working for it. They need a dose of reality.

120,000 people on waiting list.

Once you start handing out free houses where does it end?

Everyone is actually entitled to adequate shelter.

Personally I think the problem is building housing estates with maybe 50 homes in them, wouldn't it make more send to build several blocks of good quality apartments with maybe 500 homes. My family in Italy all have apartments in the city and they are far from the boxes you see here.

Lux23

Joe Late Notch wrote: »

No job - live at home. Cant afford to rent - live at home. Want kids and don't own a house or are not renting your own place with your own money, then no you cant have kids.

This is exactly what Fine Gael are trying to do. Mothers and their children have been hit hardest in this recession, on the one hand I agree with it but on the other hand I don't see it working in the long term.

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

Mothers and their children have been hit hardest in this recession,.

Have they? I can't say they have stood out to me as being hit particularity hard in comparison to anyone else.

JustTheOne

Lux23 wrote: »

Everyone is actually entitled to adequate shelter.

Personally I think the problem is building housing estates with maybe 50 homes in them, wouldn't it make more send to build several blocks of good quality apartments with maybe 500 homes. My family in Italy all have apartments in the city and they are far from the boxes you see here.

Where is this golden entitled rule you speak of?

You want something in life you work and get it yourself.

Don't expect people to hold your hand and give you the things for nothing.

Although there is your problem, people expecting other people to finance their life with a house and support their kids.

Its not really fair is it.

REXER

Jasper79 wrote: »

I get your point, but what % of people currently renting are in a position to buy a property. Are there any reports on what % of rented properties are receiving rent supplement as they obviously would not be in a position to purchase.

What % of people that are currently renting will be able to save the deposit for a house whilst they are being fleeced by land lords chasing up rents?

Jasper79

REXER wrote: »

What % of people that are currently renting will be able to save the deposit for a house whilst they are being fleeced by land lords chasing up rents?

Fleeced or being charged for a service ? people have choices, live at home, rent a room etc. What would u propose ? Free housing for all ?

jim-mcdee

FrStone wrote: »

Do they not have rent controls in Germany?

Yes, but only this year, in response to the rampant increases. Rent control only existed before this for existing rental contracts not new.

pwurple

Deleted User wrote: »

The family would leave the rental sector by owning their own home. That's my point. Someone deciding to become a landlord doesn't automatically create a house. They simply displace someone else.

You guys are arguing around in circles. Neither scenario (family buying or family renting) improves supply. It's the same end.

There is a market for both rental and home ownership. Different scenarios suit everyone. There isn't enough of either at the moment, and pitting renters vs buyers is certainly not the solution.

Del2005

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think it is automatic that government involvement in the direct provision of housing will inefficient.

There are advantages that come with it: economies of scale, more transparent procurement (vs paying out rent allowance) and whenever the tenant doesn't need the house anymore the state is left with an asset that can be reused.

Social housing tenants keep the property for life, then their kids get it. Or we get back to the origin of the problem with the council selling it's houses at a huge discount to the tennant and not replacing with new stock. Houses shouldn't be able to passed on they should be returned to the pool.

ec18

Shelflife wrote: »

I agree with you Seamus, but in my example I mentioned 30 jobs, small IT firms that could easily locate to rural areas. - Baby steps and all that. 30 people coming to our small town would be a huge boost.

Even small firms 5- 10 people would be great.

because IT people/companies in particular don't want to be in rural areas, they generally have a younger workforce and set up near large cities to attract where there is a vibrant and varied social scene

jim-mcdee

Deleted User wrote: »

???

The family would leave the rental sector by owning their own home. That's my point. Someone deciding to become a landlord doesn't automatically create a house. They simply displace someone else.

Yes, this puts upward pressure on prices (something that causes its own problems of course) that could mean more development, but that's taking a fair amount on trust.

Welcome to the world of capitalism. Nobody said it was fair.

Shelflife

ec18 wrote: »

because IT people/companies in particular don't want to be in rural areas, they generally have a younger workforce and set up near large cities to attract where there is a vibrant and varied social scene

Again you may well be correct, my point is that businesses should be encouraged to set up outside of Dublin and re energise rural communities and take the heat out of the housing problem in Dublin.

A 3 bed house in Castlebar is approx €1000 per month cheaper than a 3 bed house in Lucan thats roughly €12k a year into your hand disposable income or roughly €24k a year gross .

Joe Late Notch

Joe Late Notch wrote: »

I think the government has no place getting involved in the construction industry (aside from social housing*) any more than it has any place in the motor industry or the retail sector. Construction etc should remain for the most part a private industry, its heading dangerously in the direction of communism suggesting other wise.

*Social housing is something that we should be looking to reduce the demand for. As I mentioned on another thread people should for the most part be funding their own accommodation and people going out and having a rake of kids and expecting a house need to strongly discouraged from going down that route.

No job - live at home. Cant afford to rent - live at home. Want kids and don't own a house or are not renting your own place with your own money, then no you cant have kids.

The government is always and unavoidably involved in the construction industry unless your position is that anyone should be allowed to build anything anywhere.

jim-mcdee

jim-mcdee wrote: »

Welcome to the world of capitalism. Nobody said it was fair.

The question is whether the system we have today (people buying and selling shelter for profit) maximizes human happiness.

I would suggest it doesn't. If you are someone who just thinks capitalism is awesome and any 'market' is always better than the alternative then fair enough.

ec18

Shelflife wrote: »

Again you may well be correct, my point is that businesses should be encouraged to set up outside of Dublin and re energise rural communities and take the heat out of the housing problem in Dublin.

A 3 bed house in Castlebar is approx €1000 per month cheaper than a 3 bed house in Lucan thats roughly €12k a year into your hand disposable income or roughly €24k a year gross .

aside from the companies not wanting to be away from the capital/big cities......if people start moving over there then rents will go up there as well

ec18

ec18 wrote: »

because IT people/companies in particular don't want to be in rural areas, they generally have a younger workforce and set up near large cities to attract where there is a vibrant and varied social scene

It depends on your definition of rural.

The outskirts of cities in industrial estates are an ideal location for big business. People can live in the city and commute out or live rurally and commute into work. Particularly if its cities other than Dublin you can be in a totally rural areas in 10 or 15 mins from the city centre (but the aim should be to move stuff away from Dublin anyway). So the people living rurally can easily get into the city for socialising.

One of the biggest IT companies in the world cisco has they Irish HQ outside Galway, you can see farms from the window. Intel are in shannon and Leixlip which while neither are rural they are in no more a vibrant or varied than a rural area and its much more difficult to get into Dublin from leixlip than somewhere further outside Cork or Galway cities. Cork has many big pharma companies also well outside the city.

There is also the fact thousands and thousands of younger people would in fact rather be living in back in the country and in their home areas rather than be forced up to Dublin so I would say on the contrary that there would be a massive uptake of jobs in rural areas close to Ireland's other cities (other than Dublin).

More companies setting up around the country would only be a good thing for housing.

Shelflife

ec18 wrote: »

aside from the companies not wanting to be away from the capital/big cities......if people start moving over there then rents will go up there as well

True but they have a long way to go before they hit the Dublin figures

Jasper79

Jasper79 wrote: »

Fleeced or being charged for a service ? people have choices, live at home, rent a room etc. What would u propose ? Free housing for all ?

Housing policy not dictated by the need for investors and developers to make money.

Sounds crazy, just might work.

ibstar

http://www.thejournal.ie/modular-housing-christmas-dublin-2401473-Oct2015/

"The remaining 350 units announced in Budget – with roughly €40 million allotted to the project"

that's 114,285.71 per unit

too expensive imo for what it is.

Jasper79

Deleted User wrote: »

Housing policy not dictated by the need for investors and developers to make money.

Sounds crazy, just might work.

In a fair society where everybody pulled their weight perhaps it would.

ec18

ec18 wrote: »

aside from the companies not wanting to be away from the capital/big cities......

I don't think a lot of companies have any major advantage in being in and around Dublin to be honest. Particularly ones with big manufacturing plants etc.