What does a functioning rental market look like going forward

Old diesel

We know the rental market is messed up at the moment.....

People who actually rent out the properties as landlords consider that they are overtaxed and over regulated.

So what sort of set up should govt aim for in terms of following.

1) standard of house to be aimed for/cost to buy (3 bed apt or simi D)

2) viable rent per month for both tenant and landlord. (3 bed).

3) who should be buying properties to let in the future.

4) how should a deficit between what landlords need to be profitable (profitable at a level that's attractive) and what is financially sustainable for a tenant be resolved.

5) what fast track systems should be in place for bad tenants who over hold.

6) how should lifetime renting be managed in future - ie having a rental sector able to handle a future where people will buy their own home far less

Samuel T. Cogley

Old diesel wrote: »

We know the rental market is messed up at the moment.....

People who actually rent out the properties as landlords consider that they are overtaxed and over regulated.

So what sort of set up should govt aim for in terms of following.

1) standard of house to be aimed for/cost to buy (3 bed apt or simi D)

2) viable rent per month for both tenant and landlord. (3 bed).

This sort of house shouldn't be rented at all. They should either be bought or if they genuinely can't afford to buy families should be housed by the local council with security of tenure while children are at home. Rents should be realistic and based on income and regularly updated.

3) who should be buying properties to let in the future.

Investment properties will always be a thing. You want individual landlords rather than REITs, although REITs have their place in the top end.

4) how should a deficit between what landlords need to be profitable (profitable at a level that's attractive) and what is financially sustainable for a tenant be resolved.

It doesn't really need to be resolved. People need to realise paying off the capital is their profit.

5) what fast track systems should be in place for bad tenants who over hold.

This needs a huge overhaul and people should be evicted after 90 days and charged with criminal damage where appropriate. Furthermore it should ruin someone's credit for 6 years.

6) how should lifetime renting be managed in future - ie having a rental sector able to handle a future where people will buy their own home far less

Just reinventing the wheel IMHO. People should just buy if they want the forever home. Although I'm not opposed to long leases that have stiff penalties to either side for breaking the lease.

See bold

Qrt

A massive increase in apartment building operated in a co-op manner.

PhoenixParker

Largely composed of housing associations operating on a no or low profit basis and renting on a waiting list basis to anyone who wants.

Income gets reinvested in property and portfolio expansion.
Association commissions its own buildings with an eye to low maintenance, long term quality.
High level of standardisation across fixtures, fittings and furniture for ease of maintenance.
Big enough to have their own maintenance team with appropriate specialities operating at least a day a week at all sites.
Painting etc. carried out on a clear rota basis.

Possibility of upgrading or downgrading apartment/house size as needed.
Furniture provided or not as decided by tenants. Some choice possible due to central store system.

Security of tenure is a given unless you either don't pay or are anti social.

triple nipple

PhoenixParker wrote:

Largely composed of housing associations operating on a no or low profit basis and renting on a waiting list basis to anyone who wants.

PhoenixParker wrote:

Income gets reinvested in property and portfolio expansion. Association commissions its own buildings with an eye to low maintenance, long term quality. High level of standardisation across fixtures, fittings and furniture for ease of maintenance. Big enough to have their own maintenance team with appropriate specialities operating at least a day a week at all sites. Painting etc. carried out on a clear rota basis.

PhoenixParker wrote:

Possibility of upgrading or downgrading apartment/house size as needed. Furniture provided or not as decided by tenants. Some choice possible due to central store system.

PhoenixParker wrote:

Security of tenure is a given unless you either don't pay or are anti social.

This guy for president!

Samuel T. Cogley

triple nipple wrote: »

This guy for president!

Just curious, why did you use four quotes to quote the entire post? :pac:

Klonker

I don't understand why the rent tax credit was gotten rid of, I'd bring it back asap. I'm surprised there is no talk of this from opposition TDs or housing organisations.

Samuel T. Cogley

Klonker wrote: »

I don't understand why the rent tax credit was gotten rid of, I'd bring it back asap. I'm surprised there is no talk of this from opposition TDs or housing organisations.

This!

It's the whole reason anything else that's done without this is simply optics. We've had reams of legislation go through that have done feck all to help the situation but have diverted people away from asking this exact question.

The_Conductor

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Largely composed of housing associations operating on a no or low profit basis and renting on a waiting list basis to anyone who wants.

Income gets reinvested in property and portfolio expansion.
Association commissions its own buildings with an eye to low maintenance, long term quality.
High level of standardisation across fixtures, fittings and furniture for ease of maintenance.
Big enough to have their own maintenance team with appropriate specialities operating at least a day a week at all sites.
Painting etc. carried out on a clear rota basis.

Possibility of upgrading or downgrading apartment/house size as needed.
Furniture provided or not as decided by tenants. Some choice possible due to central store system.

Security of tenure is a given unless you either don't pay or are anti social.

The EU has officially told us to put this to bed.
We used this model- to keep the actual cost of financing social/cooperative/housing association costs- off the public balance sheet.
We've had our knuckles rapped over what has been deemed to be creative financing- by Europe- and have been told the whole shebang is back on the central books again. Its also the hurdle that Irish Water fell on- not that many people are shedding a tear over that failure.

There is no free dinner.
Our politicians have been doing obtuse and creative accounting to make big ticket items- like houses- appear in such a manner that there is no upfront cost associated with them (as for the capital programme- its being financed in such a manner that over time it'll cost over double the amount it would- if it was simply borrowed for at sovereign rates up front- but- its not on the books.........)

Politicians are adept at playing with smoke and mirrors- and far too few people are willing to try to see what is actually happening............ Of course politicians like to be popular- but by god, you'd imagine by now that enough people out there would cop that there is no such thing as a free lunch...........

Old diesel

The_Conductor wrote: »

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Largely composed of housing associations operating on a no or low profit basis and renting on a waiting list basis to anyone who wants.

Income gets reinvested in property and portfolio expansion.
Association commissions its own buildings with an eye to low maintenance, long term quality.
High level of standardisation across fixtures, fittings and furniture for ease of maintenance.
Big enough to have their own maintenance team with appropriate specialities operating at least a day a week at all sites.
Painting etc. carried out on a clear rota basis.

Possibility of upgrading or downgrading apartment/house size as needed.
Furniture provided or not as decided by tenants. Some choice possible due to central store system.

Security of tenure is a given unless you either don't pay or are anti social.

The EU has officially told us to put this to bed.
We used this model- to keep the actual cost of financing social/cooperative/housing association costs- off the public balance sheet.
We've had our knuckles rapped over what has been deemed to be creative financing- by Europe- and have been told the whole shebang is back on the central books again. Its also the hurdle that Irish Water fell on- not that many people are shedding a tear over that failure.

There is no free dinner.
Our politicians have been doing obtuse and creative accounting to make big ticket items- like houses- appear in such a manner that there is no upfront cost associated with them (as for the capital programme- its being financed in such a manner that over time it'll cost over double the amount it would- if it was simply borrowed for at sovereign rates up front- but- its not on the books.........)

Politicians are adept at playing with smoke and mirrors- and far too few people are willing to try to see what is actually happening............ Of course politicians like to be popular- but by god, you'd imagine by now that enough people out there would cop that there is no such thing as a free lunch...........

I thought the EU were merely wanting us to put this housing on the books as the amount of state money going was too high.

It's a tricky one for me as one flaw of the EU debt rules from a housing viewpoint is that it encourages us to use money for things like HAP* which we can spend money on day to day.

Rather then funding for longer term investment in new supply.

*which then costs us more long term

Old diesel

For me housing faces so many contradictory forces.

1) NZEB (very low energy buildings) is coming down the tracks. Low energy use in buildings helps our emissions and climate. Unfortunately this adds challenge and cost to housing. It's EU rules* as well like the ones The_Conductor was referring to.

2) housing needs a return on investment for the investor or Landlord - challenge is that this is in a climate of needing to keep costs competitive in the wider economy.

3) what tenants can pay will always have a limit.

I really like the housing association model myself - and id like to see such housing open up to higher incomes.

If you can rent a home for 1300 euros instead of 1800 euros then there is an economic benefit to the tenant having 500 euro tax free (tax deducted from original income) discretionary income to spend. So state investment to achieve this would be economically sensible

PhoenixParker

I'm not proposing that such housing association schemes would receive big tranches of government funding. It's self financing private rental with a focus on long term stock and good management.

DubCount

1) We need to address financing availability for development, and building regulations, to encourage more development of property at affordable prices. More property will move some demand from the rental sector to the owner occupied sector.

2) We need to stop any more legislation changes to the private rented sector. He have enough legislation already, and more law just means less landlords which is the opposite of what we need.

3) We need a model for private investment to make a return from providing social housing. The government (either through housing agencies, local councils or directly) will not be able to finance the requirements for social housing - we need private funding. Some kind of PPP is required for social housing.

4) We need an efficient process to evict non-paying and overholding tenants. Without this, we will never have a functioning private rental market.

5) we need a similar scheme for private landlords that exists for rent-a-room. This will encourage the provision of long term letting by small property owners ahead of short term letting provision

quadrifoglio verde

What does a functional market look like? 1 bed apartments in blackrock would be significantly more expensive that 1 beds in inchicore :pac: