Do we need effective rent controls in Dublin?

EdgeCase

beauf wrote: »

The market is acting normally. Supply and demand.

Supply is being restricted.

If supply is being restricted, the market's distorted and possibly even could be dysfunctional.

riffmongous

beauf wrote: »

Vienna has a housing shortage also. And a problem with new supply being restricted. Rent controls have helped with rents, but not with the shortage. In fact they may have exacerbated it. They did not stop building social housing, we did. Big difference. We still aren't building them. They are.

The difference is, the viennese shortage just means you have to spend time looking for one, but once you find one (and everyone does) you pay the same low rent as everyone else, except of course those on super low inherited contracts. You know how much my rent increased the last six years? From 394-422, and part of that is management company increases. I lost track of how much my sister's in Dublin increased but it was (whatever the old max was) around 10% a year for a while.

Anyway rent controls wouldn't be responsible for the shortage since new builds are the stock that are exempt from them.

beauf

Sounds contradictory. Same rent except where there are no controls. So then not the same rent. It hasn't fixed the shortage either.

beauf

EdgeCase wrote: »

If supply is being restricted, the market's distorted and possibly even could be dysfunctional.

Hence the biggest housing crisis in the history of the State. ...?

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who collects an administers the taxes?

Who pays their wages...

.. this could take a while...as it's a circular argument...

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

.... Housing, like a lot of other businesses where human well being is involved should have some state involvement.

You do. They decided to out source social housing to the private market. To save money.

At the same time they are making it a foreign investment vehicle with low taxes for investment companies.

How is that working out....

riffmongous

beauf wrote: »

Sounds contradictory. Same rent except where there are no controls. So then not the same rent. It hasn't fixed the shortage either.

Same rent when you find an older building that's is controlled, which the vast majority do, it just takes more time. It's new builds that aren't really controlled.. It's complicated but the proof is in the pudding as they say. And of course once you do find a place you get a 5-10 year contract so while the shortage makes it take longer once you do find a place you are sorted

Graham

steddyeddy wrote: »

I still don't think that landlords should have the ability to rent a room of this calibre, for this price.

Did you read the ad before grabbing the pitch fork?

It was being advertised as 1-bedroom flat share by someone who appears to have decided to cram a single bed into what looks like the dressing/wardrobe space of their own bedroom.

"Single bed room in the heart of Ranelagh. Sharing with one female professional."
"Flat is not owner occupied"
"Looking for females only"

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Great, so we can expect private landlords to build their own electricity, water, sewage, telecommunications, road and footpath infrastructure and stop depending upon the state for this?
At least there'd be integrity to their "the state has no right to interfere in private property" mantra then. At the moment it's just risible hypocrisy.

Bull of the highest order.

LLs pay tax (and very very large amounts of it) to pay for these services you can’t go around making statements like “we can force rules on them because they use services (that they are already paying for in tax)”

Every business uses these services but I don’t see you calling for supermarkets to have be forced to charge a certain price for a loaf of bread, or a car dealer being told “oh no you can’t charge that for a car the price is fixed at much lower” I could go on all night with examples. Renting out property is a private business which people get into in order to make profit and they should be allowed to maximize the profit their business makes by selling their product at a price they see for the same as petty much every other business in the country.

beauf

The problem with Vienna is it's not just rent controls. It's a while load of govt policies and strategies over decades not just housing, but planning land use, public transport planning over many decades.

So it's disingenuous to suggest rent controls are the solution. They are one part of whole mriyad of social policies that have been built up since WW1. We are in the stone age in comparison.

riffmongous

You said they have never worked, now who's being disingenuous eh?

WhiteMemento9

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Tax the bejesus out of the vulture funds buying property. The likes of Reis, Kennedy Wilson etc.

Banking debts onto the people leading to high taxation rates, let the vultures buy everything, corporations paying next to no tax, homeless crisis, rising house prices, no proper attempts to address the rent crisis. Even those earning good money in Dublin can barely see a way to save, start a family, buy a house etc. It is a steaming pile of ****. Seems like the perfect storm to exploit large amounts of people mainly for the benefit of the few. A common theme these days.

the_syco

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

"Fuck the poor"

So, do you support actual social housing, or the current thing of thinking private LL's will do it? Because the LL's aren't doing it, and rather than protest the government on not doing it, people prefer to ask for rent caps, rent control, etc, that actually is causing the rental market to shrink.

riffmongous wrote: »

I can't even imagine how you could do that, the city has been like this since the 20s. The only thing I could guess is that it wouldn't be number one in the world anymore, so why on earth would you

My point is that it's great as it has great social housing. And how Dublin is bad as it has nearly no social housing, anymore.

beauf

riffmongous wrote: »

You said they have never worked, now who's being disingenuous eh?

https://www.thelocal.at/20140905/thousands-of-austrian-properties-empty
https://www.thelocal.at/20160216/huge-gaps-in-vienna-housing-market


Vienna,

Annually, Vienna spends about 600 million euros ($682 million) on social housing. In comparison, Germany — with a population over 45 times Vienna's — spends about 400 million euros nationwide.

Ireland

Currently, the Government spends €2bn per year on social housing. Just over half of that money - 55% - goes to build social housing units, buy houses, or on signing very long-term leases for houses to be allocated to local authority tenants......The remaining money - about €900m per year - is used to subsidise private sector rents paid to landlords for local authority clients, as well as homeless services, traveller accommodation and other supports.

But how many do they actually build?
http://www.thejournal.ie/social-housing-budget-3639091-Oct2017/

But yeah its all about rent controls :rolleyes:

At this point it doesn't matter. The market here is shifting. It encourages older properties to leave the market, and new builds/rents to enter and raise the rent. We've even had to legislate for it with the Tyrrelstown Amendment.

beauf

steddyeddy wrote: »

....but is there a case to be made for rent controls? ...

We already have them.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/rent_increases.html

hatrickpatrick

the_syco wrote: »

So, do you support actual social housing, or the current thing of thinking private LL's will do it? Because the LL's aren't doing it, and rather than protest the government on not doing it, people prefer to ask for rent caps, rent control, etc, that actually is causing the rental market to shrink.

It should be both. Yes, the state needs to build vastly more social housing than it is. But equally, nobody - social tenant or not - should be paying €1,000 per month for a one bed apartment, simple as that.

JustAThought

Half the city it seems is paying thirty quid a week for their 2 bed 'council' appartments of 3 bed 'council' houses.
On the back of the other half who are paying far more than that in mortgages while underwriting the lifestyle of the others through their 42% taxes.

This country gave out sixty thousand NEW LEGAL pps numbers in the past 5 years to legal people coming to work here. Where do the visa granters think they will all live? That figure dosnt include their families who legally accompanied them and will also need somewhere to live.

We are also the social welfare mecca for the planet with almost no border control, free house and handouts for life if you can get a flight to or a toe on the island -and the liberal left who mostly earn a living from them want these unknown aliens and undocumented to be allowed roam wherever they want, claim dole syle payments and be let live ( ie rent via state handouts) wherever they choose rather than in controled secure alien detention centres until their stories and backgrounds can be checked. Like they do in Australia, France, and other EU countries where common sense prevails.

Again. Where do the government clerks think all these people will physically fit. What houses do they think they will live in. And when the government is writing their cheques who do you think will be pushed off the rental market. I dont know many students from working families paying mortgages who can now afford to rent in Dublin .

Wanderer78

JustAThought wrote:

We are also the social welfare mecca for the planet with almost no border control, free house and handouts for life if you can get a flight to or a toe on the island -and theliberal lefy want yhese unknown aliens and undocumwnted to be allowed roam wherever they want, claim dole tyle payments and be let live ( ie rent via state handouts) whereverthey choose rather than in controled secure alien detention centres until their stories and backgrounds can be checked.

Welfare 'mecca'!

beauf

It's a similar story across Europe.
Housing shortage from boom and bust.
Then a flood of immigration.

Wanderer78

beauf wrote: »

It's a similar story across Europe.
Housing shortage from boom and bust.
Then a flood of immigration.

maybe its more of an economic issue than other issues?

beauf

It's all the issues combined imo

Which is why focusing on one issue on its own like rent control, which just compounds the problem. Is a bit short sighted.

Then again people don't look past the tabloid titles and look at the underlying issues.

LirW

I hope the guy who's going on about "Visa granters" is aware that the majority of the 60k are Europeans that are legally entitled to work and live here without any Visa. And you need a PPS number pretty much from the get-go first and foremost for tax reasons when you work. Isn't the majority of people in council accommodation Irish anyway?

Lux23

We already have them, they just need to be enforced.

beauf

The point is we have nowhere for them to live. Same issue across Europe.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Great, so we can expect private landlords to build their own electricity, water, sewage, telecommunications, road and footpath infrastructure and stop depending upon the state for this?
At least there'd be integrity to their "the state has no right to interfere in private property" mantra then. At the moment it's just risible hypocrisy.

Isnt that what the tax that landlords pay is for?

WhiteMemento9

beauf wrote: »

The point is we have nowhere for them to live. Same issue across Europe.

That isn't a problem with immigration. That is a problem with Ireland. Fix the problems in Ireland and don't blame immigration.

Myra Late Cap

Myra Late Cap wrote: »

Bull of the highest order.

LLs pay tax (and very very large amounts of it) to pay for these services you can’t go around making statements like “we can force rules on them because they use services (that they are already paying for in tax)”

Every business uses these services but I don’t see you calling for supermarkets to have be forced to charge a certain price for a loaf of bread, or a car dealer being told “oh no you can’t charge that for a car the price is fixed at much lower” I could go on all night with examples. Renting out property is a private business which people get into in order to make profit and they should be allowed to maximize the profit their business makes by selling their product at a price they see for the same as petty much every other business in the country.

Isn't that the load of delusional nonsense, though? Landlords don't pay near enough to pay for the billions it costs to put all the electric, water, sewage, telecommunications, roads, footpaths, waste incineration and everything else in place - infrastructure which landlords could not make money without. The state would survive without the taxes landlords pay; landlords wouldn't survive without the services which the state provides.

Next time rightwing landlords (or, indeed, rightwing anything) delusionally go on as if they're an island of self-made independence, start noticing all the things paid for by other taxpayers helping you via the state. The state which funds the basic services for your business is fully entitled to insist upon both a minimum health and safety standard in accommodation - "interference" - just as it insists upon various standards from every single private business in the state. And like most other developed economies people abusing a dominant position via undermining the greater good of society are regularly restricted and undermined by state policy - we have a whole section of law called Competition Law - so rent controls are simply another variant of this "interference" by the state in businesses which could never function without the state's "interference" in the first place. State interference = good, when they're giving us something; bad, when they're expecting something from us.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Isnt that what the tax that landlords pay is for?

Yes, if they are paying billions upon billions in taxes to cover the cost of getting all these things from source into their house. I'd wager they're depending on some form of socialism where other taxpayers in the form of the state are subsidising the cost.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, if they are paying billions upon billions in taxes to cover the cost of getting all these things from source into their house. I'd wager they're depending on some form of socialism where other taxpayers in the form of the state are subsidising the cost.

why should landlords pay the full cost for a shared service? Do you pay the full cost of all the services that the government provides to you?

beauf

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

That isn't a problem with immigration. That is a problem with Ireland. Fix the problems in Ireland and don't blame immigration.

I'm not blaming immigration. Its just a fact. Ireland has population growth due to net immigration of non Irish nationals. They might be EU, Germans, French who knows. It not a cause of the problem, but a compounding factor. A lot of it is due to a booming economy. Considering the Irish emigrated to the four corners of the earth, we should be equally accommodating to others. If thats what you are worried about.

WhiteMemento9

beauf wrote: »

I'm not blaming immigration. Its just a fact. Ireland has population growth due to net immigration of non Irish nationals. They might be EU, Germans, French who knows. It not a cause of the problem, but a compounding factor. A lot of it is due to a booming economy. Considering the Irish emigrated to the four corners of the earth, we should be equally accommodating to others. If thats what you are worried about.

It is not what I am worried about. What I am worried about is that many people like the idea of something simple. So when these conversations happen and people point to immigration it becomes an easy target to blame. We lack housing, all these people are pouring in. Bingo, that is the problem and the pitchforks come out through stupidity and fear.

The roots and causes are far more deep-seeded as you yourself I think pointed out in another post. We need to focus on the causes of the problems and not something which may be currently exposing those problems to the breaking point.

beauf

Exactly. The underlying cause of the issue of building and housing shortage. Seems to be the same across Europe.

Some of these new policies are actually making it less attractive to build, or buy to rent.

I think we will just muddle through until it balances itself out over time.
We don't have the cop to doing anything smart or far thinking about it.

Wanderer78

beauf wrote:

I think we will just muddle through until it balances itself out over time. We don't have the cop to doing anything smart or far thinking about it.

Does equilibrium actually exist in such matters?

beauf

You want slow predictable growth.

We over fuelled the economy with the credit bubble. Mortgage controls and lending controls are means to control this.

Though the tax breaks to large investment firms and multinationals is not that stable Foundation.

hatrickpatrick

Wanderer78 wrote: »

maybe its more of an economic issue than other issues?

beauf wrote: »

It's a similar story across Europe.
Housing shortage from boom and bust.
Then a flood of immigration.

Once again: Overpopulation. If there were fewer people needing housing in a given area, the unpopular move towards higher density housing in that area would be unnecessary. That's simple maths.

The global economic system is still essentially a generational pyramid scheme wherein each generation needs to be bigger in order to facilitate never-ending "growth", but nobody ever seems to want to consider or talk about the inevitable long term ramifications of that.

Billy86

Would it not be a good idea for the government to build a lot of new places (regardless of anything else, that needs to happen - be it gov't or private), buy up rental properties and such on sale etc, and then to effectively become the landlords themselves? Rent money goes straight back into the system for a nice revenue stream, prices are easy to keep under control or on a scale for these properties, and as a result those charging crazy prices get squeezed out of the market. And if they do leave, those can always sell those properties to the government to rent out.

There's likely a hundred million potholes I'm not thinking of, but on the surface it just seems like something that could work very well.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't that the load of delusional nonsense, though? Landlords don't pay near enough to pay for the billions it costs to put all the electric, water, sewage, telecommunications, roads, footpaths, waste incineration and everything else in place - infrastructure which landlords could not make money without. The state would survive without the taxes landlords pay; landlords wouldn't survive without the services which the state provides.

Speaking of delusional. :rolleyes: Landlords pay exactly the same as everybody else that owns their own house. In fact they actually probably pay more seeing as they pay tax on the rental income they earn.

But going by your logic, should people on the dole not be entitled to use the roads, hospitals, doctors, etc. because they don't pay tax?

If every landlord pulled their houses off the market (wouldn't happen but lets imagine), lets see how the State would get on in that case. There'd probably be half a million homeless for a start.

beauf

Billy86 wrote: »

Would it not be a good idea for the government to build a lot of new places (regardless of anything else, that needs to happen - be it gov't or private), buy up rental properties and such on sale etc, and then to effectively become the landlords themselves? Rent money goes straight back into the system for a nice revenue stream, prices are easy to keep under control or on a scale for these properties, and as a result those charging crazy prices get squeezed out of the market. And if they do leave, those can always sell those properties to the government to rent out.

There's likely a hundred million potholes I'm not thinking of, but on the surface it just seems like something that could work very well.

Thats basicially what they stopped doing.

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-social-housing-ireland-then-and-now-3594254-Sep2017/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seven-councils-built-no-social-housing-from-2013-to-2015-1.2745459

hatrickpatrick

beauf wrote: »

Thats basicially what they stopped doing.

http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-social-housing-ireland-then-and-now-3594254-Sep2017/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/seven-councils-built-no-social-housing-from-2013-to-2015-1.2745459

They stopped doing it around the same time that Ireland, the UK and America adopted the post Reagan / Thatcher "third way" neoliberalism of the 1990s and 2000s. And since them, a lot of things have gone to sh!t. Why policy makers can't make the obvious connection is totally beyond me.

Snotty

the_syco wrote: »

.


Large scale LL companies, also called REITs, don't care about sob stories. Pay on time, or be evicted. They will get the max amount out of the tenants, and will raise the rent as often as they can.

Yes, it's a business, you pay or if you can't, you get evicted, why can Irish people not grasp that?

The Market will dectate the price, nothing else, if there is low stock and demand, then yes its going to be very expensive, this is the same in most cities, why is Ireland any different? If the prices continue to increase, then developers will see value and in building, or land owners will see value in selling, thus bring more stock to cater to demand.

Governement intervention in the housing market and rental market is always a disaster, it's usually a knee Jerk reaction to appease some group.

SEPT 23 1989

If there was money to be made from solving the housing disaster it would be fixed in five years

But there is money to be made now

Wanderer78

Snotty wrote:

The Market will dectate the price, nothing else, if there is low stock and demand, then yes its going to be very expensive, this is the same in most cities, why is Ireland any different? If the prices continue to increase, then developers will see value and in building, or land owners will see value in selling, thus bring more stock to cater to demand.

Once again, 'the market' actually isn't truly capable of providing us with all our needs, hence research such as 'the inefficiency of the market'

Gatling

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If there was money to be made from solving the housing disaster it would be fixed in five years

But there is money to be made now

Seen a 2bed apartment in tallaght earlier on going for €2000 pm

Way too much money being made now ,why would certain types want anything fixed ,
Never in my lifetime did I expect rents in tallaght to hit €2000 + for a 2 bed property

SEPT 23 1989

Gatling wrote: »

Seen a 2bed apartment in tallaght earlier on going for €2000 pm

Way too much money being now ,why would certain types want anything fixed ,
Never in my lifetime did I expect rents in tallaght to hit €2000 + for a 2 bed property

That is outrageous no disrespect to Tallaght

Ray Palmer

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

If there was money to be made from solving the housing disaster it would be fixed in five years

But there is money to be made now

There isn't money to be made now and the potential risks make future investment a bad idea.

What people fail to realise is the majority of rental property in Ireland is owned by small time landlords with 70% of the market.

That means the majority pay 52% tax on all rental income. Even considering what can be taken as expenses it is still about 50%.

From a small time investment property has become very unstable not from the market but from what the government may do next.
When rents were falling the government added charges to rental income.
New rules on property making bedsits illegal
They reduced RA making many tenants break leases.
Then they made it illegal to not accept RA.
Rent controls came in punishing those who didn't raise the rent with the market.

So would you invest in a market where such radical things can happen?

Consider other proposals
Make it a criminal offence to break a lease, increase rent, etc...
Make the rent control rules permanent
Any variety of any possible extra charge being talked about

The public in general don't care and expect the landlords to provide a risky investment and put up with it. Landlords will leave the market and things will get worse

alias no.9

Gatling wrote: »

Seen a 2bed apartment in tallaght earlier on going for €2000 pm

Way too much money being now ,why would certain types want anything fixed ,
Never in my lifetime did I expect rents in tallaght to hit €2000 + for a 2 bed property

This is a direct result of the RPZ. New tenants and tenants needing to move have been thrown under the bus.

Compliant landlords simply aren't advertising their properties when they come available, they're filling them from with their personal networks. If the rent is being held below market rates at a time of unprecedented demand, it's just not possible to deal with the volume of enquiries you'll have.

Step forward the landlords who have exemptions from either significant upgrading or for new to the market properties and of course the cowboys who'll ignore the regulations anyway and they'll happily ask 2k for a 2 bed in Tallaght.

The legislation is actually constructed in a way that compels the landlord to push the rent as high as possible because failure to do so limits future rent increases and potentially the market value of the property. It's madness. It should be constructed to hurt the guys who were leading the charge with rent increases but instead locked them in at a premium rent, backed by legislation.

hatrickpatrick

The RPZ thing was a ridiculous way to do rent controls. Rents needed to be decreased, not merely held at an already unacceptable level while people figured out ways around the law, as outlined above.

Amirani

Billy86 wrote: »

Would it not be a good idea for the government to build a lot of new places (regardless of anything else, that needs to happen - be it gov't or private), buy up rental properties and such on sale etc, and then to effectively become the landlords themselves? Rent money goes straight back into the system for a nice revenue stream, prices are easy to keep under control or on a scale for these properties, and as a result those charging crazy prices get squeezed out of the market. And if they do leave, those can always sell those properties to the government to rent out.

There's likely a hundred million potholes I'm not thinking of, but on the surface it just seems like something that could work very well.

Few of the big issues here...

1. Who funds it? The State building or buying lots of new places is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. The rent money becoming a "nice revenue stream" is far less than the amount they're going to have to pay to increase the stock. So you have a big fiscal shortfall. Where do you make it up - reduce spending in other areas such as health or start raising taxes? Are you happy with either?

2. The State being a landlord makes it very difficult to deal with problem tenants. Similar to how you have issues with sacking people working in the civil service, if a tenant stops paying, the State just aren't going to be able to remove them; it's difficult enough for private landlords to do it.

3. If the State succeeds in your suggestion to significantly reduce rents and property prices; it benefits prospective renters/purchasers. However, at the same time it automatically makes homeowners/landlords/banks worse off, as rising rents and property prices are beneficial to these. Which of these 2 groups of people do you think are a bigger voting bloc?


I'm not voicing my support or opinion on any of the above, but there are pretty obvious reasons why the Government doesn't engage in large scale house building or buying, the incentives are largely set up to do the opposite.

the_syco

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It should be both. Yes, the state needs to build vastly more social housing than it is. But equally, nobody - social tenant or not - should be paying €1,000 per month for a one bed apartment, simple as that.

If every social tenant out there was housed by the CC, and not a private LL, there'd be a lot more houses available to rent, and thus a lower demand. This would cause a drop in rent price.

Amirani wrote: »

2. The State being a landlord makes it very difficult to deal with problem tenants. Similar to how you have issues with sacking people working in the civil service, if a tenant stops paying, the State just aren't going to be able to remove them; it's difficult enough for private landlords to do it.

Currently private LL's have to deal with said problem tenants that the CC puts into their house, and washes it's hands of them when they stop paying rent.

Said problem tenants are causing the private LL's to leave. Either the State builds houses now, or forced to build them when LL's decide not to accept anyone on HAP, when risks outweigh the possible fines.

jimgoose

steddyeddy wrote: »

So rent controls are the cause of a room being rented out at 610 a month?

Rent controls cause landlords/potential landlords to exit the market/not enter the market in the first place, and also to convert rather decent Victorian houses from flats back to the way they should be so they can point them at the more lucrative market. This reduces the supply of rental accommodation while the demand remains the same or higher. It's like trying to steer a car by leaning out the window and shoving one of the front wheels to one side or other with your hand - you're trying to solve the issue from the wrong end.