Property Market 2017

Bob24

Henbabani wrote: »

im really don't believe that this action will solve one of the biggest probelm - vacant houmes, but it's a good start in the big road. the minister should do more but we can that he is targeted this issue as a big target - this is the good thing that you can take from that step that i wrote above.

Thing is, as The Conductor explained the proposal is largely impractical. If people are in a nursing home it is precisely because they are not fit to manage themselves and their affairs on their own anymore. How are they expected to manage a rental property? Plus their kids will usually have other worries than managing a rental property and the house will be full of memories no-one wants to dispose of to rent it. I've had elderly family members in another country going to nursing homes whereby the 80% income barrier the minister is talking about was not present at all, and still their houses were not rented.

The concern with pretending that the crisis can be solved with an accumulation of small hacks like this is that it just acts as an excuse not to look at the real problems.

Cuddlesworth

It would just make more sense to incentivize them to sell off the family home and not penalise them in doing so rather then rent. That's the problem with the fair deal for nursing homes, it motivates the family and the owner to not sell and to leave the property vacant.

If they rent, 80% of the income goes to the government. But even under the new scheme, the house pretty much always needs a large cash injection for renovation. And the owner going into a nursing home, doesn't need income any more and doesn't care about it.

Meanwhile selling the house leads to the government chipping away at the children's inheritance which means they won't sell.

And of course, and this applies to other situations as well, there is basically little risk in comparison to the reward of sitting on land or property in Ireland.

OwlsZat

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

It would just make more sense to incentivize them to sell off the family home and not penalise them in doing so rather then rent. That's the problem with the fair deal for nursing homes, it motivates the family and the owner to not sell and to leave the property vacant.

If they rent, 80% of the income goes to the government. But even under the new scheme, the house pretty much always needs a large cash injection for renovation. And the owner going into a nursing home, doesn't need income any more and doesn't care about it.

Meanwhile selling the house leads to the government chipping away at the children's inheritance which means they won't sell.

And of course, and this applies to other situations as well, there is basically little risk in comparison to the reward of sitting on land or property in Ireland.

This times 100.
The minister would do well to try to form a list of situations where people are sitting on vacant homes and remove the drivers of this behaviour.

Henbabani

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-vacant-3544449-Aug2017/?utm_source=shortlink

i guess we love this act more than the nursing house.

Wanderer78

c montgomery wrote:

If this is the best they can come up with then it will be a long time b4 this crisis is resolved

I actually can't ever see it being resolved, not unless we introduce some kind of social housing building again

Bob24

Henbabani wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-vacant-3544449-Aug2017/?utm_source=shortlink

i guess we love this act more than the nursing house.

"A vacant homes website has also been developed, which allows people to anonymously log possible vacant properties across the country."

Am I the only one finding this of very poor taste?

Really sounds to me like a criminalisation of holiday-home owners and a call for anonymous delation.

Henbabani

Bob24 wrote: »

Henbabani wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/housing-vacant-3544449-Aug2017/?utm_source=shortlink

i guess we love this act more than the nursing house.

"A vacant homes website has also been developed, which allows people to anonymously log possible vacant properties across the country."

Am I the only one finding this of very poor taste?

Really sounds to me like a criminalisation of holiday-home owners and a call for anonymous delation.

agree with that.
the minister can solve the whole problem with one act - move all the airbnb issue from Rent pressure zones.
this step will definitely solve the problem.

pilly

Bob24 wrote: »

"A vacant homes website has also been developed, which allows people to anonymously log possible vacant properties across the country."

Am I the only one finding this of very poor taste?

Really sounds to me like a criminalisation of holiday-home owners and a call for anonymous delation.

It's not holiday homes they're trying to target. It houses in the middle of estates in the busiest parts of the country, we've all seen them and wondered why the hell they're going to waste.

In a lot of cases it's because the banks have possession of them, they should be forced to sell or rent them out.

Villa05

pilly wrote:

In a lot of cases it's because the banks have possession of them, they should be forced to sell or rent them out.

There's 1 on my road empty for at least 4 years. A lot of renovation activity in the last couple of months. I wonder can they receive this grant for renovating empty homes and leasing them to the councils.

It would be yet another kick in the teeth to be using taxpayers money to reward banks whom have been a significant part of the problem

DubCount

Henbabani wrote: »

agree with that.
the minister can solve the whole problem with one act - move all the airbnb issue from Rent pressure zones.
this step will definitely solve the problem.

Apart from working out how to enforce this, removing AirBnB would help one problem (short term) and cause another.

Removing AirBnB would bring a lot of property onto the market for sale/long term rent. This would reduce house price and rental inflation until that stock got used up. Eventually, not building enough new homes every year is going to bite us eventually.

Then there is the question of where all the visitors who are currently using AirBnB are going to stay. We dont have enough spare hotel room capacity to do this. We would be replacing rental inflation with hotel room inflation and damaging the tourism industry in the process.

Sleepy

One of the issues very few politicians want to acknowledge is that some of the council's existing stock is simply unrentable. There are empty properties that no-one on the Waiting Lists will accept because they're in absolute hell holes of anti-social behaviour.

Bob24

DubCount wrote: »

Then there is the question of where all the visitors who are currently using AirBnB are going to stay. We dont have enough spare hotel room capacity to do this. We would be replacing rental inflation with hotel room inflation and damaging the tourism industry in the process.

This is correct, but as a political choice I find it difficult to see how a governement could justify supporting the conversion of long term housing units to tourist accommodation while a lot of people are struggling with housing. Yes it helps the tourism industry, but I doubt most people would find it justifies the associated cost on the residential property market (both a social cost but also an economic cost as higher housing costs are 1) applying upwards pressure on salaries for no usefull reason which makes the whole economy less competitive 2) discouraging some large employers from expending their workforce in Ireland).

Henbabani

DubCount wrote: »

Henbabani wrote: »

agree with that.
the minister can solve the whole problem with one act - move all the airbnb issue from Rent pressure zones.
this step will definitely solve the problem.

Apart from working out how to enforce this, removing AirBnB would help one problem (short term) and cause another.

Removing AirBnB would bring a lot of property onto the market for sale/long term rent. This would reduce house price and rental inflation until that stock got used up. Eventually, not building enough new homes every year is going to bite us eventually.

Then there is the question of where all the visitors who are currently using AirBnB are going to stay. We dont have enough spare hotel room capacity to do this. We would be replacing rental inflation with hotel room inflation and damaging the tourism industry in the process.

I saw lot of airbnb apartments expensive than hote rooms. Second, a thousands of hotel rooms are building those days.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

Bob24

draiochtanois wrote: »

That's a simplistic view.
Some properties are on AirBNB because they don't meet the standard for rental accommodation.
or an owner uses it for a period of the year - holiday home or accommodation for their children (students)
Many of these properties wouldn't be rented out at all so rather than improving things it would exacerbate the very problem you seek to remedy.

The question is what "some" means here.

Personally I think if you look at complete properties (not rooms) available in Dublin on Airbnb, a fairly large majority of them would be rented out with regular leases if they were not on Airbnb.

dudara

Henbabani wrote: »

agree with that.
the minister can solve the whole problem with one act - move all the airbnb issue from Rent pressure zones.
this step will definitely solve the problem.

It's a bit harsh to remove ALL Airbnb activity, and I think it fundamentally interferes with a property owner's rights to manage their property as they see fit (assuming that they are compliant with planning laws etc).

I think Airbnb could be restricted somewhat, bringing some stock back onto the rental/sales market, but I think banning it altogether would be foolhardy.

Henbabani

dudara wrote: »

Henbabani wrote: »

agree with that.
the minister can solve the whole problem with one act - move all the airbnb issue from Rent pressure zones.
this step will definitely solve the problem.

It's a bit harsh to remove ALL Airbnb activity, and I think it fundamentally interferes with a property owner's rights to manage their property as they see fit (assuming that they are compliant with planning laws etc).

I think Airbnb could be restricted somewhat, bringing some stock back onto the rental/sales market, but I think banning it altogether would be foolhardy.

that's the reason i wrote only in RPZ.

LirW

All these proposals are so incredibly retarded, it's unbelievable. I genuinely can't understand who a government can talk about luring candidates of the Fair Deal scheme into the work of a landlord despite being in urgent need of full time care.
I mean it's proven from various economists that the housing crisis is one of the biggest threats for the economy. It turns qualified work force away and this will bite the country one day.
Just build houses and clear up areas that are swamped with anti social behavior so people do actually want to live there. Don't tax doomsday out of landlords and make renting out attractive again.
I certainly can't get behind the fact that there are only excuses why people have should be grateful to rent a rat hole firetrap for 1200€/ month.
Forcing people into the role of landlord or penalizing them can't be the the right approach under the current legislation.

But I'm quite certain we haven't seen the cherry on the cake yet :rolleyes:

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

jamesthepeach

Yep.
Make it impossibly hard work to be a landlord and tax the sh1t out of anyone brave enough to stick to it.
Then force people who are old and frail enough to HAVE to go into a nursing home to do it instead.
Well done government, yet again.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

DubCount

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Yep.
Make it impossibly hard work to be a landlord and tax the sh1t out of anyone brave enough to stick to it.
Then force people who are old and frail enough to HAVE to go into a nursing home to do it instead.
Well done government, yet again.

+1

How are elderly people in nursing homes (possibly with mental or physical frailty) going to manage to perform the legal duties of being a landlord? Who is going to manage their tax returns and represent them at RTB hearings? How are going to perform property inspections or chase up on late rental payments?

Why cant our beloved government not build social housing units like they used to do in the good old days?

AlmightyCushion

DubCount wrote: »

+1

How are elderly people in nursing homes (possibly with mental or physical frailty) going to manage to perform the legal duties of being a landlord? Who is going to manage their tax returns and represent them at RTB hearings? How are going to perform property inspections or chase up on late rental payments?

Why cant our beloved government not build social housing units like they used to do in the good old days?

Wouldn't a property management company cover most of that?

jamesthepeach

Not to mention that if anyone actually knows an elderly person who is unfortunate enough to end up in a nursing home, they hold out the hope, however slight, that they will someday be allowed back to their house. Yes, the house that they spent their blood, sweat and tears, over more years than most people suggesting this have been alive, to aquire and to maintain it.

And sometimes they can get out for a day and be brought to visit THEIR home and it brightens up their day so much.

Also family who are home to visit them in the nursing home.e can stay in the house. It makes it easier arranging time from family who might be abroad and want to come back and help etc.

Government are now targeting the elderly big time. Sure they are just dying to up the retirement age again already.

I tell ya, if the government even go near pulling the trigger on this one they will not only lose they pensioners or near pensioners votes, they will also lose the vote of anyone else over 40, which seems to be the magic age at which people realize that one they they will actually be old. Before that age people seem to think they will be you forever.

Bob24

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Wouldn't a property management company cover most of that?

Yes and no.

An agent can handle many things for you but you still need to be in a position to address serious issues when they arise and understand everyone's rights and duties and engage with the agent on an equal basis so that you don't get screwed and understand what's happening (which you will be unlikely to manage if you are not in a position to live at home anymore).

Plus in many cases the house will be a family home full of memories for the elderly person and their children. From a psychological aspect they will likely either want to leave it as is or to sell it and move on. Letting it go someone else with all the family possessions/memories would be weired, and if they make the decision and go through the trouble of emptying the house from all those them they probably might as well sell it.

pilly

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Not to mention that if anyone actually knows an elderly person who is unfortunate enough to end up in a nursing home, they hold out the hope, however slight, that they will someday be allowed back to their house. Yes, the house that they spent their blood, sweat and tears, over more years than most people suggesting this have been alive, to aquire and to maintain it.

And sometimes they can get out for a day and be brought to visit THEIR home and it brightens up their day so much.

Also family who are home to visit them in the nursing home.e can stay in the house. It makes it easier arranging time from family who might be abroad and want to come back and help etc.

Government are now targeting the elderly big time. Sure they are just dying to up the retirement age again already.

I tell ya, if the government even go near pulling the trigger on this one they will not only lose they pensioners or near pensioners votes, they will also lose the vote of anyone else over 40, which seems to be the magic age at which people realize that one they they will actually be old. Before that age people seem to think they will be you forever.

Very good points, and a lot of older people want to die in their own home too.

Zenify

draiochtanois wrote: »

It's really this simple cut: VAT on new homes from 13% to 0%

I can't see why people aren't suggesting a vacant land tax?

All the government have to do is mention it and everyone will try sell their land and it will bring a lot of land onto the market, thus reducing the price for builders to purchase it.

if the government announced in budget 2018 that vacant land will be taxed from 2019 at 2% 2020 at 3% 2021 at 4%. Everyone housing land will sell. I honestly see this as the best solution.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

jamesthepeach

Zenify wrote: »

I can't see why people aren't suggesting a vacant land tax?

All the government have to do is mention it and everyone will try sell their land and it will bring a lot of land onto the market, thus reducing the price for builders to purchase it.

if the government announced in budget 2018 that vacant land will be taxed from 2019 at 2% 2020 at 3% 2021 at 4%. Everyone housing land will sell. I honestly see this as the best solution.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Vacant land tax is not the saviour everyone thinks it is. Think about it. Are you going to tax everyone in the country try that has vacant land. No way are they all going to be building on them at the same time. Just not possible. And that's just one issue with it. But hell with them. Tax them. Sure that's the answer to everything.

The government don't actually want the building rate everyone else is expecting they do. Sure way to a property crash.

Villa05

jamesthepeach wrote:

Vacant land tax is not the saviour everyone thinks it is. Think about it. Are you going to tax everyone in the country try that has vacant land. No way are they all going to be building on them at the same time. Just not possible. But to hell with them. Tax them. Sure that's the answer to everything.

What exactly is wrong with it.

It has been all carrot up to now. It's time to get out the stick when the carrot has not been working.

Some people may pay the tax others may choose to build or sell, that's there choice.

I can't think of no fairer tax than a tax on an under utilised asset.

LirW

What about vacant land that might not be suitable for building or it's hard to get planning permission? Or people that own places that are derelict because they inherited them? Rural sites that are sitting on the market and just don't sell?
A lot of sites that could be used for building are around for ages because you'll only get permission to build when you have ties to the area, build in a certain style or whatnot.