Life for rent

MidnightMurphy

Seeing as the issue of rent and housing is all over the news at the moment I thought I'd share my personal thoughts about my own situation.


Mod Edit: Please post your thoughts, not your blog.

Michael D Not Higgins

Don't know where you get your opinion on the RTB from, but it's exceedingly pro-tenant, contrary to your blog. The government are just about to limit rent increases in Dublin too to 4%, so don't see how they're on the lookout for landlords either.

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The government are just about to limit rent increases in Dublin too to 4%, so don't see how they're on the lookout for landlords either.

The popular misconception that government is looking after landlords is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment accompanied with the usual like-fest.

Michael D Not Higgins

Graham wrote: »

The popular misconception that government is looking after landlords is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment accompanied with the usual like-fest.

There's more money long term in serving their day job and getting votes than serving the side job of letting. Protecting landlord's interests doesn't get votes.

MidnightMurphy

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Don't know where you get your opinion on the RTB from, but it's exceedingly pro-tenant, contrary to your blog. The government are just about to limit rent increases in Dublin too to 4%, so don't see how they're on the lookout for landlords either.

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

They obviously are, have you not been reading the news?

Unfortunately many of those 2nd homers provide a fair sized chunk of the rental market. Driving them into the wall probably isn't the ideal way of encouraging the delivery of rental properties.

MidnightMurphy

Graham wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

They obviously are, have you not been reading the news?

Unfortunately many of those 2nd homers provide a fair sized chunk of the rental market.  Driving them into the wall probably isn't the ideal way of encouraging the delivery of rental properties.

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

c montgomery

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

Maybe people should take responsibility for their own housing needs and stop whinging to the government at any opportunity.

50000 units by end of 2017!!! Won't happen btm 2020!!

Michael D Not Higgins

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

This has nothing to do with the criticism I gave for your blog post.

Of course the government need to build social housing, of course they need to stimulate the market to encourage building the supply that's lacking, of course they need to do all these things, but it has nothing to do with your moan about the RTB and government being pro landlord. They're demonstrably not.

amcalester

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

And I'm sure that most landlords would agree with you on this but it works both ways, if you want private landlords to provide (social) housing then their needs also need to be considered. The obvious example being quicker evictions for non-paying tenants.

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business.

Not many business are subject to an ongoing and constantly changing barrage of government imposed costs.

c montgomery

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

They are running their business, there's very few properties for rent so it seems like business is good.

It's not landlords fault that supply is limited

amcalester

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

Increase supply and rents will fall, have better legislation protecting both landlords and tenants and everyone will benefit.

Continuing to hit landlords pockets will cause landlords to sell up reducing supply and driving up rents. Everyone loses.

I'm a renter btw.

MidnightMurphy

c montgomery wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

Maybe people should take responsibility for their own housing needs and stop whinging to the government at any opportunity.

50000 units by end of 2017!!! Won't happen btm 2020!!

So you think people working fulltime not being able to afford rent and unable to find homes are whiners?

If there are no houses available how do you propose they take 'responsibility' for their housing needs?
Ah I see - because NAMA is a state agency then you think that occupying empty NAMA buildings is fair and reasonable?

Glad you clarified?

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Ah I see - because NAMA is a state agency then you think that occupying empty NAMA buildings is fair and reasonable?

Glad you clarified?

errrr. What?

murphaph

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market.

Food and medicines are even more important but the market decides what they cost. Even your GP with his €60 for 5 minutes is unregulated. But landlords have always been popular bogeymen in Ireland. We haven't quite gotten over the fact the British are gone.

MidnightMurphy

c montgomery wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

They are running their business, there's very few properties for rent so it seems like business is good.

It's not landlords fault that supply is limited

But housing is too essential a requirement of a civilised society to be left to the devices of the market,. #
Which is why direct government intervention is essential - not tinkering with the problem.
the problem is the housing supply.
The cause of the problem is the free market,.
Governmnet intervention is needed.

MidnightMurphy

murphaph wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market.

Food and medicines are even more important but the market decides what they cost. Even your GP with his €60 for 5 minutes is unregulated. But landlords have always been popular bogeymen in Ireland. We haven't quite gotten over the fact the British are gone.

The market does not decide what medicine costs - in the US the pharma market is unregulated and medicine is way more expensive there. It is regulated here.

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

You realise it's not an either/or proposition. It's quite possible to find a solution that's in the interests of both sides. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, investor buys property with an expectation of a reasonable return, tenant rents it.

pilly

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

The market does not decide what medicine costs - in the US the pharma market is unregulated and medicine is way more expensive there. It is regulated here.

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

You absolutely are calling LL's the bogeyman, in fact your blog calls them cowboys.

I'm both a tenant and LL and know for a fact that RTB is totally pro-tenant. It's more of an organisation that fights for tenants rights than a body of arbitration which it should be.

75% of LL's in Ireland are private owners but this won't last for long the way things are going.

I'd be very happy if the government offered to buy my house at a good price. But not gonna happen. What will happen is I give up renting it out because it's too much stress and hassle, let the bank have it bank, it'll sit empty for 5 or 6 years while all that goes on and then maybe the bank will sell it to a private individual or maybe they'll sell it to a vulture fund.

amcalester

Graham wrote: »

You realise it's not an either/or proposition. It's quite possible to find a solution that's in the interests of both sides. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, investor buys property with an expectation of a reasonable return, tenant rents it.

This needs to be more highlighted to people.

A landlord tenant relationship should be mutually beneficial and any action by the government should strengthen this relationship to the benefit of both parties.

At the minute though both parties are looking at the other thinking are you going to screw me over. The tenant fears double digit rent increases and the withholding of a deposit if they move out, and the landlord is afraid that the tenant will stop paying rent/destroy the property and leave thousands in arrears/damages behind when the landlord eventually recovers possession of the property.

Graham

amcalester wrote: »

At the minute though both parties are looking at the other thinking are you going to screw me over. The tenant fears double digit rent increases and the withholding of a deposit if they move out, and the landlord is afraid that the tenant will stop paying rent/destroy the property and leave thousands in arrears/damages behind when the landlord eventually recovers possession of the property.

+1

a though process that's only being encouraged by one-sided government actions. I can't see it changing unless/until somebody realises (and has the balls to say) it's having a negative effect on supply.

PraxisPete

There won't be a deluge of properties on the market after this bill. The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties. They will also get an additional 4% until the crises is fixed. I can't say I feel too bad for them.

Gmol

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

Not a landlord but should it not be the same for people renting them as well?

As someone said there needs to be a mutually beneficial solution rather than driving one or the other side to the wall

PraxisPete

PraxisPete wrote: »

There won't be a deluge of new properties on the market after this bill. The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties. They will also get an additional 4% until the crises is fixed. I can't say I feel too bad for them.

Any landlord getting the current market rent is doing pretty well, but what percentage of properties are let at the current market rate?

Graham

PraxisPete wrote: »

There won't be a deluge of new properties on the market after this bill. The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties. They will also get an additional 4% until the crises is fixed. I can't say I feel too bad for them.

Keep in mind that the underlying value/cost of the property has increased. A 4% increase isn't great if the underlying value/cost of the asset has increased 25%.

Such disparity is only likely to encourage existing landlords to sell and future landlords to back away.

PraxisPete

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any landlord getting the current market rent is doing pretty well, but what percentage of properties are let at the current market rate?

I'm in my early 30's and almost everyone I know is renting and almost everyone is paying market rates after they got their rent hikes before the 2 year freeze. Anecdotal evidence but I'd put it at about 90%.

PraxisPete

Graham wrote: »

Keep in mind that the underlying value/cost of the property has increased. A 4% increase isn't great if the underlying value/cost of the asset has increased 25%.

Such disparity is only likely to encourage existing landlords to sell and future landlords to back away.

Will it though? We'll know after a few months if on my street and the surrounding area which is largely inhabited by renters suddenly has lots of properties for sale. I don't see it happening.

amcalester

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

But housing is too essential a requirement of a civilised society to be left to the devices of the market,. #
Which is why direct government intervention is essential - not tinkering with the problem.
the problem is the housing supply.
The cause of the problem is the free market,.
Governmnet intervention is needed.

Should government intervention also include allowing landlords recover the actual costs of damage done to property by tenants?

If you want a fully regulated property sector then its only logical to include this too.

Graham

PraxisPete wrote: »

Will it though? We'll know after a few months if on my street and the surrounding area which is largely inhabited by renters suddenly has lots of properties for sale. I don't see it happening.

It will become apparent over the next 2 years how many landlords are leaving the market and how many are joining.

PraxisPete

PraxisPete wrote: »

I'm in my early 30's and almost everyone I know is renting and almost everyone is paying market rates after they got their rent hikes before the 2 year freeze. Anecdotal evidence but I'd put it at about 90%.

I'm renting out an apartment at well below market rate, to a nice couple in their early thirties, going to sell it next year if the market doesn't collapse, as I'm finally no longer in negative equity.

I really hope someone will buy it, will be going at an asking price of around 30% below the 2004 price new build price.