Leeside Apartments tenants face eviction after RTB landmark ruling on refurbishment

Claw Hammer

Scienceless wrote: »

When you say temporarily avail of below market rents what do you mean?
Is the below market rent issue going to be addressed somehow?
Thanks.

Nothing lasts forever. The landlord will sell, or their part 4 will expire for the rent cap will be lifted.

Del2005

Heisenberg. wrote: »

I sincerely doubt it.
If the Govt. has a choice between extending/replacing the RPZs or the exacerbation of homelessness, I'm pretty sure they'll choose the more voter friendly option.

Then the REITs will challenge then and win. The government are driving private landlords out as they can't afford to go to court to challenge the law. When the government has had it's way and driven the private landlords out the REITs won't stand for the current or proposed laws and they have the money to fight.

Samuel T. Cogley

TBH I don't think REITs will challenge the legislation despite it being (IMO) patently unconstitutional. They're happy with the results. Drive private LL's out they can continue to buy entire blocks, fire a gym in, tart the place up a bit and charge luxury rents to tech and finance employees.

The one they may challenge, but will probably just deal with it at a lobbying stage is the refurb (non)'loophole'.

GGTrek

Another very biased article from the usual media on this same matter:
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/leeside-apartment-residents-call-on-housing-minister-to-introduce-legislation-to-block-mass-evictions-851226.html
Terminating a tenancy to 20 people over a span of almost one year is now called mass eviction (is it 10 the right number?), the most vocal tenant reason for staying is very clear now: she is paying less than half the market rent and cannot afford full market rent, while the landlord with the stupid RPZ negotiation has been taken away any possibility of negotiating (this the tenant has not understood), because if after a costly renovation the fund does not put the rent to full market rent, the RPZ legislation will block the landlord from future increases to recoup costs. Gone are the days where landlords could negotiate rent with sitting tenants or give discounts, the government made sure of that with their stupid legislation.
I love the people these so called journalists gave voice to, the usual McVerry bs:
"Homeless campaigner Fr Peter McVerry called on the Government to introduce legislation to make it illegal to evict people into homeless in the next three years."
Sure let's give 3 years free rent to anyone.
On the other side the housing crisis will continue for quite a while since big building companies are just busy with commercial projects and builders don't want to come back to Ireland (big skills shortage):
https://www.independent.ie/business/world/housing-crisis-and-high-tax-deter-builders-from-returning-37053458.html
The most impressive fact to me is that the turnover of such a big company has actually shrinked from last year which very likely means it is building less and making more profit, while what the Irish economy needs is for these people to increase turnover and build more. This company is involved in the Grangegorman project: I know the place really well and I enjoy going there for a walk, really beautiful, but it is a major waste of public land in a prime Dublin location served by public transport. The place is just a massive park with a few sparse low rise buildings right in the middle of Dublin!

the_syco

Homeless campaigner Fr Peter McVerry called on the Government to introduce legislation to make it illegal to evict people into homeless in the next three years.

Jaysus. Why pay rent if you can prove no LL will take you?

robp

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

TBH I don't think REITs will challenge the legislation despite it being (IMO) patently unconstitutional. They're happy with the results. Drive private LL's out they can continue to buy entire blocks, fire a gym in, tart the place up a bit and charge luxury rents to tech and finance employees.

The one they may challenge, but will probably just deal with it at a lobbying stage is the refurb (non)'loophole'.

REITs have such a different niche to small landlords I don't see why they would want less small landlords. Small landlords don't buy blocks.

Samuel T. Cogley

robp wrote: »

REITs have such a different niche to small landlords I don't see why they would want less small landlords. Small landlords don't buy blocks.

The vast majority of LL's own 2 or less properties. That's an awful lot of competition, generally at lower rents then a REIT is willing to offer. They're delighted the small time LL is being forced out.

GGTrek

robp wrote: »

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

TBH I don't think REITs will challenge the legislation despite it being (IMO) patently unconstitutional. They're happy with the results. Drive private LL's out they can continue to buy entire blocks, fire a gym in, tart the place up a bit and charge luxury rents to tech and finance employees.

The one they may challenge, but will probably just deal with it at a lobbying stage is the refurb (non)'loophole'.

REITs have such a different niche to small landlords I don't see why they would want less small landlords. Small landlords don't buy blocks.

Investment funds bought a few small B&B in North Dublin very recently and also houses in central/north Dublin that were converted to apartments (in one case I know we are talking about a small blocks of 5 apartments). They are the main BTL buyers at the moment in North/Central Dublin (which is the area I know best), while small LL are selling BTL.