Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Its bash the landlord time again
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
10pennymixup wrote: »Where's the tenant/ renter bashing. These posts could be classed as dole bashing not tenant bashing.
And there's the issue. REITs take the best tenants at the top of the market. Private LLs are left with the lower end, that have restrictive controls put in place by the government (RAS, HAP). Hence the dole bashing. Dole people are mostly renters
0 -
And there's the issue. REITs take the best tenants at the top of the market. Private LLs are left with the lower end, that have restrictive controls put in place by the government (RAS, HAP). Hence the dole bashing. Dole people are mostly renters
Sticking a smiley face at the end of your posts does not give them any credence.
"Dole people" are mostly renters. Reits get the best tenants. Smiley face, it must be true.
Wheres your evidence to back up such crass statements? (Rhetorical, I don't really need it and it doesn't exist anyway mainly because its not true.)
First you wanted evidence of LL's leaving, then it changed to evidence of the reasons they're leaving (impossible to get), then it was accusations of tenant bashing. Now tenant bashing is changed to dole bashing.
How about some consistency:):):):):):):):):):):):):):)0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
10pennymixup wrote: »Sticking a smiley face at the end of your posts does not give them any credence.
"Dole people" are mostly renters. Reits get the best tenants. Smiley face, it must be true.
Wheres your evidence to back up such crass statements? (Rhetorical, I don't really need it and it doesn't exist anyway mainly because its not true.)
First you wanted evidence of LL's leaving, then it changed to evidence of the reasons they're leaving (impossible to get), then it was accusations of tenant bashing. Now tenant bashing is changed to dole bashing.
How about some consistency:):):):):):):):):):):):)
And finally,my friend
I put smiles into my posts as there is too much aggression in posts that are political in nature. I'm just trying to show people that none of my points are personal. I'm merely debating points in question. Admittedly maybe in your case I found one individual who is annoyed by smiley faces. :eek: 0 -
-
-
-
And finally,my friend I put smiles into my posts as there is too much aggression in posts that are political in nature. I'm just trying to show people that none of my points are personal. I'm merely debating points in question. Admittedly maybe in your case I found one individual who is annoyed by smiley faces. :eek:
The emoji's are not the source of irritation. That would be the nonsense and the time I have wasted dealing with the nonsense.0 -
-
10pennymixup wrote: »And that's your evidence to prove "dole people" are mostly renters and Reits get the best tenants??
A quote from a five year old tax office report on the 2013 finance bill that goes no where near to proving your assertions.
No, It seems that you may be purposefully misinterpreting my point now, but it's ok; denial is one of the the steps towards acceptance
It's my answer to you point on "Reits get the best tenants." and that "REITs are real competition for private LL by government design".
I'm sure you could try to bash the report as much as you want to, but it shows clear intent to put the rental market where it is right now as a GOVERNMENT POLICY by design. But it's just symptomatic that private LL and their defenders find it difficult to argue this point and blame over holding and other costs as the issue, using it as an opportunity to bash renters by pointing to RAS and HAP recipients as being anti-social. It is clear REITs are able to achieve market returns of 6.5% and are happy with it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
No, It seems that you may be purposefully misinterpreting my point now, but it's ok; denial is one of the the steps towards acceptance
It's my answer to you point on "Reits get the best tenants." and that "REITs are real competition for private LL by government design".
I'm sure you could try to bash the report as much as you want to, but it shows clear intent to put the rental market where it is right now as a GOVERNMENT POLICY by design. But it's just symptomatic that private LL and their defenders find it difficult to argue this point and blame over holding and other costs as the issue, when it is clear REITs are able to achieve market returns of 6.5% and are happy with it.
I came on this thread to comment on poor piece of journalism, a puff piece that panders to the populist reader, the kind that also reads the papers multitude of ridiculous click bait articles
I am not bashing a report, I am not purposefully misinterpreting any point, I am not denying.
All that I am doing is just wasting my time waiting for you to answer anything that I put to you.
Please go ahead and have the last word, I don't mind. It will be nothing but obfuscation anyway.0 -
-
I'm not missing anything, I just don't agree with your view.
There are alternatives to resolving the rental crisis that does not involve reducing renters' rights, which is always an easy way out, but not productive for our economy.
He isnt saying reducing their rights. He is saying stop changing their rights every single year and create some stability.
What about the rights of ll. How about a nice and simple right where if you dont pay your rent. Your out within 3 months. In effect they are stealing and im sure if you walked into tesco and took somwthing it wouldnr be accepted so how about we actually do the samw for tenancies. This will only impact people that dont pay ao for most hard working people, they wont even notice this law. In the end the hard working people pay for it as with increase risk of the cohorts that dont pay, others will have to make up the difference be in the form of more ll leaving the market or just paying more in rent for increased risk0 -
No, It seems that you may be purposefully misinterpreting my point now, but it's ok; denial is one of the the steps towards acceptance
It's my answer to you point on "Reits get the best tenants." and that "REITs are real competition for private LL by government design".
I'm sure you could try to bash the report as much as you want to, but it shows clear intent to put the rental market where it is right now as a GOVERNMENT POLICY by design. But it's just symptomatic that private LL and their defenders find it difficult to argue this point and blame over holding and other costs as the issue, using it as an opportunity to bash renters by pointing to RAS and HAP recipients as being anti-social. It is clear REITs are able to achieve market returns of 6.5% and are happy with it.
Do you really think REITs are in it for Social tenancies. They are targetting market rate tenancies that usually occur on the higher end of the market. Where is it clear they are happy to achieve market returns. I havent seen that statement mentioned once in any articles i have read.0 -
He isnt saying reducing their rights. He is saying stop changing their rights every single year and create some stability.
What about the rights of ll. How about a nice and simple right where if you dont pay your rent. Your out within 3 months. In effect they are stealing and im sure if you walked into tesco and took somwthing it wouldnr be accepted so how about we actually do the samw for tenancies. This will only impact people that dont pay ao for most hard working people, they wont even notice this law. In the end the hard working people pay for it as with increase risk of the cohorts that dont pay, others will have to make up the difference be in the form of more ll leaving the market or just paying more in rent for increased risk
I disagree with these points. Government changes policy all the time. We are moving away from coal towards sustainable energy.
To borrow your example that would mean stealing from coal mine owners because they are used to a stable income from previous years. Apart from Trump I do not see any people of merit arguing against a change in the policy to combat climate change. Why should a change in the government policy on housing be any different? Houses are a type of habitat?
edited: All LL are tying to do is minimise their risks. There are alternatives that are better for society. also to point out that at any point any private LL can sell up and invest into REITs, it's not like they are closed funds. There is also the added benefit of diversification, where you won't get stuck with 1 overholding tenant, as you are invested into all of REITs properties simultaneously. Risk is diversified.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I disagree with these points. Government changes policy all the time. We are moving away from coal towards sustainable energy.
To borrow your example that would mean stealing from coal mine owners because they are used to a stable income from previous years. Apart from Trump I do not see any people of merit arguing against a change in the policy to combat climate change. Why should a change in the government policy on housing be any different? Houses are a type of habitat?
edited: All LL are tying to do is minimise their risks. There are alternatives that are better for society. also to point out that at any point any private LL can sell up and invest into REITs, it's not like they are closed funds. There is also the added benefit of diversification, where you won't get stuck with 1 overholding tenant, as you are invested into all of REITs properties simultaneously. Risk is diversified.
Your comparing apples with oranges. My analagy for describing tenants overholding is actual theft as they receive a service and do not pay for it. In your example. Private bodies are struggling to sell their good due to environmental impacts. So they are not stealing the service or product. If the governement or a person was taking the coal and using it but not paying for it. This would be the equivalent of my analogy.
They are changing the policy for coal wtc butnits gradual and has a long term global view in mind with some real positive impacts on the environment. The changes the government are making on rental legislation is hap hazard, reactive at best and has been performed by several other countries with little to no good results and actually prooves a hinderence in the market. The EU even said it causes problems ywt they still went ahead with it.
Your right people need to adapt to an ever changing market place, however in this case REITs are not making up enough of a difference in what is required to having a functioning market and they are also only target specific types of rentals that dont cater to the lowest common denominator.
In terms of adaption and ever changing situations. You could also say that the lower paid should move out of dublin if they cant afford it but they expecr from a social aspect that they should be able to remain. Its a little hypocritical to expect all the benefits and none of the positives with everything you discuss0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement