Daft Rental Report is Out

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The market knows nothing I'm afraid, it's time to ditch this ridiculous notion of the market knows best. The right type of intervention is required

There is just the market.
You can join the market or leave the market.
In this case the government needs to join the market.
Trying to control it will only distort the market and it never works out.

Wanderer78

beauf wrote:

The market will always adjust to supply and demand. Even if that's under the counter payments to get around and artificial rules.

We put too much faith in market equilibrium models, they fail time and time again in dealing with our actual needs. I'm disturbed watching this tragedy unfold when our housing shortfall was spotted almost 10 years ago

Yourself isit

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I think they will be bought with a view to refurbishment if they are to be left on the market. I think one beds are the only investment game in town at the moment. Less work, less tenants, bigger yields by some margin.

If they are being taken off the market then family homes will be bought by families or couples and any house shared will be split up.

It's a fact that the government has never ever done anything to change the rental market here that hasn't rested in making it worse.

When will they get the message. Interference is ALWAYS disastrous.

Rubbish. The free market can't produce enough housing for everybody.

The government should interfere more but not in the pro developer crony capitalist way it already has.

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We put too much faith in market equilibrium models, they fail time and time again in dealing with our actual needs. I'm disturbed watching this tragedy unfold when our housing shortfall was spotted almost 10 years ago

I don't think anybody was worried about a future housing shortage 10 years ago tbh.

jamesthepeach

Yourself isit wrote: »

Rubbish. The free market can't produce enough housing for everybody.

The government should interfere more but not in the pro developer crony capitalist way it already has.

How would you do it then?
Obviously noone else has figured out how to do it without disaster. So if you can you would be unique.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

I don't think anybody was worried about a future housing shortage 10 years ago tbh.

Tom Lyons has been writing about the housing shortage since 2009, particularly in the Dublin region. He wasn't alone

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Tom Lyons has been writing about the housing shortage since 2009, particularly in the Dublin region. He wasn't alone

2009 was 8 years ago not 10.
We all know what our concerns were 10 years ago. They weren't about a lack of property in 2017.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

2009 was 8 years ago not 10. We all know what our concerns were 10 years ago. They weren't about a lack of property in 2017.

Oh come on, what's the difference? I did say 'almost' 10 years ago!

jamesthepeach

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Oh come on, what's the difference? I did say 'almost' 10 years ago!

Do you have a link to the article, I'd like to read it.
Might be fun.

Wanderer78

jamesthepeach wrote:

Do you have a link to the article, I'd like to read it. Might be fun.

I don't to be honest, but I'd say if you goggled Tom Lyons you 'll eventually get there. He said he was highly ridiculed for it at the time as ghost estates were all the news back then. It was well spotted in my view. It really isn't a joking matter in my eyes, this is truly disturbing to watch unfold

athtrasna

Folks please take the to and fro to pm as it's starting to monopolise this thread. Thanks

Mod

Yourself isit

jamesthepeach wrote: »

How would you do it then?
Obviously noone else has figured out how to do it without disaster. So if you can you would be unique.

Without disaster? Plenty of countries have functional markets with rental controls. The UK had controls until thatcher.

Also when the government built housing it acted as a stabiliser.

The free market caused the last boom here, and the recent failure to develop was a total market failure.


Not that bad government policy won't exacerbate issues though.

antoinolachtnai

There are plenty vacant properties in dublin (32000) and if they were brought online, it would make a big difference to the housing situation in the short term. It could be done with taxation, but it requires political will.

Bob24

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There are plenty vacant properties in dublin (32000) and if they were brought online, it would make a big difference to the housing situation in the short term. It could be done with taxation, but it requires political will.

Ironically it would probably be stopped by the like of Paul Murphy pretending to defend the common man but who would be shouting "can't pay, won't pay" if the government was trying to increase property tax (a move which would both make the purchasing market more fluid and bring new properties onto the rental market by making things less comfortable for speculators).

Villa05

beauf wrote:

Do You think its co-incidence that everything the Govt does has the effect of reducing supply, and increasing rents. Especially for large investments properties, funds.

Some of it is a bit ingenious In achieving a reduction in supply so that makes me think is it a side effect of policy or actual policy.

Fol20

Bob24 wrote: »

Ironically it would probably be stopped by the like of Paul Murphy pretending to defend the common man but who would be shouting "can't pay, won't pay" if the government was trying to increase property tax (a move which would both make the purchasing market more fluid and bring new properties onto the rental market by making things less comfortable for speculators).

And at the same time cause more financial burden on some people who may already be struggling. How about the people who paid a large chunk of change 10 years ago for stamp and now have to pay lpt. A separate charge on unused properties might be good. At least then nama or whoever owns them might put them on the market for rent and alleviate the rental crisis until everything settles down again

Fol20

I understand that everything needs some amount of legislation but as we have seen in building property. Too much legislation adds extra costs and acts as a disincentive as well. Renting is getting too many requirements now days. Speaking from ll point of view, inwould much prefer to drop the rental per month by x amount if i didn't have to supply people with crappy beds etc that nobody wants. Likewise give people a blank slate where they can do what they want with it but give it back to me in the same condition I gave it to you in.

Bob24

Fol20 wrote: »

A separate charge on unused properties might be good.

I think it is too easy to dodge (you can always pretend the property is being used and it will be difficult to check). Increasing LPT and possibly releasing tax burden on those individuals who are too impacted though other ways would be better to fluidity the marker.

The idea is that if you have higher regular charges for owing a property it will give on incentive for those who have one and are not fully usign it to release it onto the market (sell or rent). Long term it is actually good for everyone (except speculators) as it tend to reduce prices and people can possibly save more in mortgage repayments than they would pay in additional LPT.

antoinolachtnai

I think the way to go would be to suspend most requirements on properties which have been vacant, for the first few years.

You can let unfurnished as it is, but there isn't that much market for it. There are certainly things you are expected to provide, true.

Michael D Not Higgins

Fol20 wrote: »

I understand that everything needs some amount of legislation but as we have seen in building property. Too much legislation adds extra costs and acts as a disincentive as well. Renting is getting too many requirements now days. Speaking from ll point of view, inwould much prefer to drop the rental per month by x amount if i didn't have to supply people with crappy beds etc that nobody wants. Likewise give people a blank slate where they can do what they want with it but give it back to me in the same condition I gave it to you in.

You're able to rent unfurnished in the Irish legislation. There is no need to provide beds, good or crappy. There are requirements for white goods in the kitchen however.

Tenants are supposed to return the property in the same condition taking into account wear and tear.

jamesthepeach

Look at the apartment block in balally where they just got notice that now they have to pay over and above the rent for services they got for free up till now.
That's where we are going now.
So the daft rent report will be obsolete unless it shows rent + extras.

antoinolachtnai

But at least these properties are available. The underlying problem isn't with the supply that is available. The problem is the houses and apartments that aren't available, because they are vacant or haven't been built yet.

beauf

Fol20 wrote: »

And at the same time cause more financial burden on some people who may already be struggling. How about the people who paid a large chunk of change 10 years ago for stamp and now have to pay lpt. A separate charge on unused properties might be good. At least then nama or whoever owns them might put them on the market for rent and alleviate the rental crisis until everything settles down again

Fol20 wrote: »

I understand that everything needs some amount of legislation but as we have seen in building property. Too much legislation adds extra costs and acts as a disincentive as well. Renting is getting too many requirements now days. Speaking from ll point of view, inwould much prefer to drop the rental per month by x amount if i didn't have to supply people with crappy beds etc that nobody wants. Likewise give people a blank slate where they can do what they want with it but give it back to me in the same condition I gave it to you in.

The problem is not legislation. Not that we check much of it anyway.

Considering the Govt through Nama is selling off property instead of using it for housing, I think you have to realise the Govt is fueling this shortage.

Th problem is we are not building the property we need (low cost and social), and in enough volume. If you want to buy an expensive property you can buy it.

beauf

Villa05 wrote: »

Some of it is a bit ingenious In achieving a reduction in supply so that makes me think is it a side effect of policy or actual policy.

IMO, the policy seems to be, to encourage, incentivise big business, and funds, at any social cost.

Yes we want the country back on its feed. But I wonder will we still own any of it, by the time that happens.

beauf

Wanderer78 wrote: »

We put too much faith in market equilibrium models, they fail time and time again in dealing with our actual needs. I'm disturbed watching this tragedy unfold when our housing shortfall was spotted almost 10 years ago

We haven't had a market equilibrium model. We keep interfering. Sometimes thats by doing nothing somewhere else. For example allowing unregulated borrowing by people and banks.

We also stopped building social housing. Much of which is a means of home ownership for many people. That just stopped overnight.

There was a ton of little things all done, which have the cumulative effect of reducing supply. In fact we (the Govt) have done almost nothing to increase supply. They literally done everything they were warned not to.

antoinolachtnai

Well there have been a lot of things done that were intended to have a positive effect, but instead have had a negative impact.

For example, the regulations on bedsits were supposed to increase standards, and they they did, but they also resulted in a reduction in supply.

Similarly, the increase in quality standards and certification requirements is supposed to make houses easier to heat and make it less likely that homes will turn out to have major flaws like pyrite or fire safety deficits. And it will have this effect, but it also increases costs.

The regulations on floor area and aspect are intended to increase comfort of properties that are built, and they will, but it is also having the effect of making it illegal to build small, simple accommodation for single people and making costs higher for all entry-level property.

The result is that it now costs as much or more to build a home than what you can sell it for when you take everything into account, and that means that nothing is really being built. The Central Bank has put a ceiling on borrowings, so house prices won't go up to the level where building could really start in earnest. (Even if we reached that point, we would hit other problems.)

It is too easy to say that the international funds are the bad guys here. They are just doing their jobs. They at least keep their apartments all occupied. They would love to finance and buy more apartments, I am sure, but they don't have the opportunity. The problem is all the homes that haven't been built or the homes that aren't being rented out.

quadrifoglio verde

beauf wrote: »

The problem is not legislation. Not that we check much of it anyway.

Considering the Govt through Nama is selling off property instead of using it for housing, I think you have to realise the Govt is fueling this shortage.

Th problem is we are not building the property we need (low cost and social), and in enough volume. If you want to buy an expensive property you can buy it.

Most of the property being sold by nama was already rented out. It's 2012 since I remember seeing an empty apartment block, except for ones with fire safety concerns

Bob24

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Most of the property being sold by nama was already rented out. It's 2012 since I remember seeing an empty apartment block, except for ones with fire safety concerns

I live in one with fire safety concerns, and the situation is so tense that even that one hasn't been evacuated in spite of threats from the fire brigade and everlasting delays with the remediation works. I'd even say people are so desperate they are queuing to pay almost 1500 euros per month for a 1 bed apartment there. Crazy city!

beauf

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Most of the property being sold by nama was already rented out. It's 2012 since I remember seeing an empty apartment block, except for ones with fire safety concerns

2016...

...Nama says it had offered all the apartments at the Tallaght Cross West complex to the Housing Agency and to Dublin's local authorities before deciding to sell the majority of them....

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/nama-defends-tallaght-cross-west-sale-as-rent-forecasts-improve-sharply-34374863.html

beauf

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

....It is too easy to say that the international funds are the bad guys here. They are just doing their jobs. They at least keep their apartments all occupied.....

Who is saying they are bad guys?

The point is we have a housing shortage. Yet we are selling off housing. The Govt aren't building anything to replace it, for those that can't afford it.