Vulture fund to sell currently tenanted homes in Dublin 15

Hollister11

handlemaster wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tenants-told-to-leave-as-vulture-fund-to-sell-dublin-homes-1.2571558

I think within this article theres a big bit of the playing to the crowd by the politicians. The properties will be bought and new owners or investors will move in. Its not like the properties will remain empty.

There not vulture funds. They had the money to buy the property when they went up for sale, now they have decided to sell them. There entitled to do as they wish with them, as long as they follow the proper laws in regards to the current tenants.

I feel sorry for the families 100%, but they don't own them, so there isn't anything they can do.

Villa05

Cork City Council was refused permission by the then-Government to purchase the Eden complex in Blackrock at a knock-down price after Ireland's property market crash. It was instead told to use portions of it on long-term lease agreement. The revelation came as 35 tenants at Eden have now been told by a receiver to vacate their rented properties.

The majority are single professionals working in technology and service firms in the Blackrock and Mahon areas.

It is understood about 10 families are involved in total

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/cork-tenants-told-to-quit-apartment-complex-over-sale-34544107.html

Its some country where you can be years behind in your mortgage and keep the utility value of the house, while diligent renters can be turfed out at a moments notice

handlemaster

Unsavoury article by the indo today... trying to cast mud. ... why are Landlords vilified in this manner. ... No such issues when landlords lose their shirts. ..


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/underfire-developer-built-airstrip-beside-family-home-without-planning-permission-34544386.html

whippet

handlemaster wrote: »

Unsavoury article by the indo today... trying to cast mud. ... why are Landlords vilified in this manner. ... No such issues when landlords lose their shirts. ..


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/underfire-developer-built-airstrip-beside-family-home-without-planning-permission-34544386.html

the larkins are not landlords. They are developers and they are managing the properties for the landlords.

As for the Indo, the headline refers to the 'runway' but nowhere in the article does it provide any evidence or even hearsay that it has ever been used as a runway. Its a strip of tarmac, all be it a long strip of tarmac and according to the articles it is used to play around with fast cars.

So, in other words, nothing to see here but give us a headline for the Outrage Classes so they can get outraged about something else

Graham

handlemaster wrote: »

Unsavoury article by the indo today... trying to cast mud. ... why are Landlords vilified in this manner. ... No such issues when landlords lose their shirts. ..


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/underfire-developer-built-airstrip-beside-family-home-without-planning-permission-34544386.html

+1

Absolutely cretinous article by the Indo, I suppose this type of sh@#e has to land somewhere since the demise of the News of The World.

The brief given to Luke Byrne must have been go and try and rake up as much shi# as you can about the Larkin family and present it wrapped in as much hyperbole as you possibly can.

A few choice phrases designed to appeal to the serial outragers:

eject at least 40 residents
the landing strip was sometimes used to test high-powered cars
the goal was to "maximise profits"
massive stately Georgian home

rossmores

Its some country where you can be years behind in your mortgage and keep the utility value of the house, while diligent renters can be turfed out at a moments notice[/QUOTE]


There are lots of protections for tenants even the bad ones i would go further to say there is more

seamus

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely cretinous article by the Indo, I suppose this type of sh@#e has to land somewhere since the demise of the News of The World.

Danger of a defamation suit there too, claiming the airstrip is illegal even though it's fallen outside the time limit for planning enforcement and is therefore legal by default.

mobileforest

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

Only way to solve our housing problem is enact a law that stops anyone from selling a house for more than you bought it for. You could adjust it for inflation to make it fair. Houses are there to be homes for people to live in. They should not be investments sitting empty for people to sell on. There are empty houses all over the country while working people are homeless in hotels.

Why would anyone ever invest a dollar in their homes it this was law? I'm going to assume that you've never owned property so I want to give you an example as to why your idea wouldn't work. My parents for the last 40 yrs, added several rooms to their house to accommodate a growing family not to mention add and repair features such as the central heating, electrical work, and outside modifications like the back deck, garden, and shed. If they moved out today, the next resident will move into a home that despite being over 70 yrs old, has up to date electrical, plumbing, heating, kitchen, and countless other features. It's makes their home worth a lot more than a few neighbour's homes, which despite being identical 70yrs ago, have not had any major improvements done since the 1960s.

If you were them, and knew they couldn't earn more on reselling over their neighbours, would you ever bother to modernise your home? If you were buying a home, would you even bother to look at the neighbour's house since you can get a much nicer home like my parents' house for the same price?

AlanG

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

Only way to solve our housing problem is enact a law that stops anyone from selling a house for more than you bought it for. You could adjust it for inflation to make it fair. Houses are there to be homes for people to live in. They should not be investments sitting empty for people to sell on. There are empty houses all over the country while working people are homeless in hotels.

Capital gains tax on homes did much of this and it was a mess even when only 9%, you want to bring it up to 100%. As said earlier you would punish people for doing up their homes and on top of that you woudl make it impossible for home owners to move to new builds or out of the country. it makes no sense at all. We need more mobility in the housing market, not less.

whippet

Graham wrote: »

The brief given to Luke Byrne must have been go and try and rake up as much shi# as you can about the Larkin family and present it wrapped in as much hyperbole as you possibly can.

I had some brief dealings with the Larkins going back almost a decade ago and I found them to be a quite decent people to work with.

Graham

whippet wrote: »

I had some brief dealings with the Larkins going back almost a decade ago and I found them to be a quite decent people to work with.

Bizarrely I think that's reflected by the article given the biggest "scandal" the Indo could trump up is they live in a nice house with a tarmac strip.

mobileforest

It's a tough day for some renters in Ireland but the media is really only showing one side of this story. The stories all talk about families who've lived in these homes for about 10 years or less. I'm guessing most are from about 8 yrs and less. As someone who was a renter for most of those years during the recession I can say it was a good time to be a renter. I lived in apartments that are well out of my price range now and landlords were happy just to have someone pay to keep the lights on. The recession is over now and that means 3 and 4 bedroom houses in suburban Dublin within walking distance to schools and plenty of green spaces is no longer within the price range of many young families (including myself). This isn't evil capitalism, it's reality.

I've once had to move my family heading into Christmas from a 2 bedroom apt to a shared space (ie rented rooms within someone else's home) because the apartment was being sold so I feel for the families being affected here. Mind you I held no grudge with the landlord. He was just a regular guy like me struggling to keep his head above water in the recession and was fortunate enough find someone to take the property off his heavily indebted hands.

But where is the story about the other side of the coin. I know someone who had to rent their home (near where this story is taking place) back right before the recession due to personal reasons which forced them to become renters themselves in another city. They, like a lot of other people in this country had to chase new economic prospects, and became landlords out of necessity. When the recession dragged on, this person was forced to lower the rent asking price well below the amount needed to pay for management fees and even below the amount needed to pay their mortgage. To raise it to a level that would simply allow them to break even risked having the renter abandon the property for a cheaper option (which there were plenty at the time). I remember watching this person once go without a few meals and other needs to pay for some repairs on the property requested by the tenants (new paint, etc) that I'm sure the ones I read who support tenants would say is their human right to have. Before someone suggests this person should have sold their property, remember the same recession that forced them to lower rents also prevented them from having a hope in hell of selling.

The recession is over. This means some families will now have to vacate homes that were above their means and move to more modest homes while others, who were with means but without options will now move in. It will be an adjustment for some but life will go on. My only hope is that the affected renters will not be swayed while currently feeling mad by others suggesting they break the law. No injustice is happening here and if they do something illegal, those other people, egging them on now, will not be there to help them.

mobileforest

handlemaster wrote: »

Unsavoury article by the indo today... trying to cast mud. ... why are Landlords vilified in this manner. ... No such issues when landlords lose their shirts. ..



I once lived in a town in Canada that would serve you notice after a week if you so much as tried to extend your patio a few feet or build a garden shed without a permit. These guys built a minor airport and it took the planning officers 10 yrs to notice despite having a aerial photo of the place sitting in their desk for 7 of those years. Why are the journalist showing me a picture of this Larkin guy and not one of the guy doing such a poor job running the Meath county council planning office?

Graham

mobileforest wrote: »

Why are the journalist showing me a picture of this Larkin guy and not one of the guy doing such a poor job running the Meath county council planning office?

That wouldn't feed the outrage du jour or generate anything like the same level of clickbaity headlines.

athtrasna

Can we stay on topic please. Thanks

beauf

I'm not entirely sure what the topic is.

Many would argue they want big companies to come in an replace small LL's, and don't want the Govt to build social housing. The idea being big professional companies would drive down rents, and be better for tenants. Yet here we have this very situation and the companies doesn't want to be in the rental business. It would seem to have the opposite impact many have predicted.

handlemaster

The rental business is vilified to much for not been in tune with tenants emotions. ... it's ment to be social service provided at a loss and at the same time drop in centre for all kids of tenants. .... People just keep addingz to the list of demands from the Irish landlord

The_Conductor

Guys- the estate of houses has been managed as an estate of houses, on an interim basis- on behalf of the owners- for the last decade. The original owners have sold the loans on- and the new owners are not in the property management business- they want to make a return on their investment- and get out.

Its economics 101.

It is unfortunate for those who have been renting there long term- I'd argue that tenants from continental countries may have imagined that long term tenancies were the norm- when unfortunately this is not the case.

The landlord kept the rents at an artificially low level compared to comparable properties in the vicinity- which ensured they were permanently tenanted- but its a multi-faceted issue- the tenants got artificially low rents- however, if they're forced to leave, they're unlikely to find accommodation in the immediate area- as they've been artificially low rent..........

Looking at this cold and hard- the timing is not ideal- its a falling market- however, its as good as it gets otherwise- with an artificially low supply of property on the market- meaning if they price these any way reasonable at all- they'll sell like hotcakes, deposit requirements etc notwithstanding.

Yes- there is a human cost- the tenants- however, there is a commensurate human opportunity- all those prospective buyers will have property to purchase- whose not to say they may very well be young families who will need and appreciate all the amenities and facilities that we've been hearing the estate has access to?

The knux of all the problems here- is a complete and utter halt to the provision of residential accommodation in the greater Dublin area. In addition- there is an expectation- that living in a 2-3 bed, with a garden- is the norm- when anywhere else, its exceptional. We need both an adjustment to our expectation- alongside measures to get our construction industry building suitable accommodation- where we need it- once again.

lisasimpson

Unfortunately this case is going to be repeat around the country with nama properties and the likes..there are a few thicking time bombs in cork at the moment. A v unsettling time to be a renter esp when you have no where to go.

The_Conductor

lisasimpson wrote: »

Unfortunately this case is going to be repeat around the country with nama properties and the likes..there are a few thicking time bombs in cork at the moment. A v unsettling time to be a renter esp when you have no where to go.

The flipside of the coin- is the vast preponderance of people who might buy these properties, were they put on the open market- are currently renting- so it may simply be a reshuffling of the decks- moreso than anything else.

I'd argue that the joker in all of this- is the stated preference to sell these to an investment group- alongside their suggested ROI of 10-12% per annum (front loaded with massive rent increases- as in a lot of cases, any local property particularly in the Cork area for rent- is at vastly higher rates than in the estates that are proposed for sale).

The best possible solution all round- as far as I can see- would be to place all of these properties on the open market- available to private people to purchase- but to do it in a staggered manner- so as to keep as high an occupancy ratio as possible, during the sale process...........

Dublin, Cork and to a lesser extent Galway- are at the fore of these issues.

mobileforest

The_Conductor wrote: »

It is unfortunate for those who have been renting there long term- I'd argue that tenants from continental countries may have imagined that long term tenancies were the norm- when unfortunately this is not the case.

I agree with the rest of your post but not fully with this bit. I too am a foreigner (and not even EU) yet like me I doubt anyone moving here would assume their new home works the same way as their old did. I think what is happening here (at least it's my take from reading the articles) is that these unfortunate families are being giving poor advice from certain politicans and others who are using their plight in their efforts to shift Ireland from a land dominated by private home ownership to one dominated by government owned social housing.

borderlinemeath

mobileforest wrote: »

I agree with the rest of your post but not fully with this bit. I too am a foreigner (and not even EU) yet like me I doubt anyone moving here would assume their new home works the same way as their old did. I think what is happening here (at least it's my take from reading the articles) is that these unfortunate families are being giving poor advice from certain politicans and others who are using their plight in their efforts to shift Ireland from a land dominated by private home ownership to one dominated by government owned social housing.

Government owned social housing is the last thing the government want to do. Why would they when the private sector is doing the job for them and paying them back up to 60% in revenue? I was listening to Matt Cooper the other day and apparently 30% of the social housing tenants they currently do have - do not pay their rental percentage, seemingly without any liability. Yet they expect - no they have legislated - that private landlords cannot discriminate against RA applicants.

utmbuilder

Anti Eviction signs all over Tyrellstown now like political posters, saying not to leave the homes, i believe this will also screw private landlords getting non paying tenets out the estate/area has about 2500 homes

The_Conductor

utmbuilder wrote: »

Anti Eviction signs all over Tyrellstown now like political posters, saying not to leave the homes, i believe this will also screw private landlords getting non paying tenets out the estate/area has about 2500 homes

Its only 4% of the homes in Tyrellstown who are caught up in this mess- you can bet you're right- we're going to have hoardes hopping on the bandwagon.........

People really need to think through the consequences of their actions.

handlemaster

Adding yet another reason why landlords will want to sell up. Who would want to deal with the rent for life at below market prices brigade ? The government dont want to supply social housing but will do their best to screw those who do....

Villa05

handlemaster wrote:

Adding yet another reason why landlords will want to sell up. Who would want to deal with the rent for life at below market prices brigade ? The government dont want to supply social housing but will do their best to screw those who do....

Too much to ask for a properly functioning market for landlords tenants, buyers and sellers

Absolute scandal that the government through NAMA are selling apartments near Tallaght hospital for 100k a piece when the replacement cost is apparently 280k + site cost and this is happening during a housing crisis

The cost of housing low income households is going to be borne by the taxpayer one way or the other.
Government policy appears to be to maximise that cost.

handlemaster

I can see rental prices rising in Dublin 15 if this carries on... two year fixed rates already then .. protests if the Landlord wants to sell

borderlinemeath

handlemaster wrote: »

Adding yet another reason why landlords will want to sell up. Who would want to deal with the rent for life at below market prices brigade ? The government dont want to supply social housing but will do their best to screw those who do....

Even as a landlord myself I have mixed feelings on "market prices". At the minute rents are going through the roof and are unsustainable to many. I feel very sorry for tenants stuck in this situation. I haven't increased my tenants rent since July 2014 and if I did so now it would render them homeless, a family with 3 school going kids. I'm covering my costs so I'm not going to increase it yet. Yet I'm considered a fool by many by not maximising my business profit, and those landlords that do are vilified by a baying public buoyed on by a few socialist politicians who think that if you're only on a basic wage or welfare that you should be housed FOC. Yes, there should be a safety net for the vulnerable in society but our present method is keeping them propped up for life, without penalty or worry and no incentive to achieve independent living.

beauf

You often see places empty that the owner has chosen to leave empty rather than rent. I used to think they were crazy, but I can now why they would want to avoid all the hassle.

ThisRegard

utmbuilder wrote: »

Anti Eviction signs all over Tyrellstown now like political posters, saying not to leave the homes, i believe this will also screw private landlords getting non paying tenets out the estate/area has about 2500 homes

I don't think they are saying for people to not leave their homes? I've seen the flyers handed out and it doesn't mention this anywhere.