Its bash the landlord time again

terrydel

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Either way, why should it be up to private landlords to house the homeless? Unbelievable article.

Because the government (fg) that I'm guessing many in this thread voted for, have passed the problem off to the private sector, due to their ideological aversion to the state providing housing (or any essential service if possible) to anyone. Vote for parties that feel it's the states duty to look after those less fortunate (and let's not even start getting into a demonise the homeless debate) and stop voting for neoliberal, market worshipping right wing ideologues.
FG are the landlord party, but their definition of a landlord is not some celtic tiger pup who managed to get one or two places to rent out in his or her greed fueled frenzy of the past. It's the ones they willfully allow to avoid any and all tax.
Until Irish people start voting for parties that wish to create a society rather than a nation of me feiner individuals, which is what Ireland undoubtedly is, then the problems of now will continue, and that includes the issues facing small and accidental landlords.

Mickiemcfist

terrydel wrote: »

Because the government (fg) that I'm guessing many in this thread voted for, have passed the problem off to the private sector, due to their ideological aversion to the state providing housing (or any essential service if possible) to anyone. Vote for parties that feel it's the states duty to look after those less fortunate (and let's not even start getting into a demonise the homeless debate) and stop voting for neoliberal, market worshipping right wing ideologues.
FG are the landlord party, but their definition of a landlord is not some celtic tiger pup who managed to get one or two places to rent out in his or her greed fueled frenzy of the past. It's the ones they willfully allow to avoid any and all tax.
Until Irish people start voting for parties that wish to create a society rather than a nation of me feiner individuals, which is what Ireland undoubtedly is, then the problems of now will continue, and that includes the issues facing small and accidental landlords.

Id love if we had a half decent option to be honest. It's either ff/fg- same thing or sf/independents who are mostly a leftist rabble. Theyd give everyone a free house in D2 & we'd be bankrupt in a week.

CatFromHue

There's been a long lead in to this housing crisis, it's been building for years. You could argue as far back as 2003 or 2004.

I'm no fan of what FG has done to try and solve the situation, I'm even less of a fan of what the other parties say they would do, but they inherited this problem. They didn't create it.

I think that the housing problem started with the sell off of council houses. This should never have happened. All that stock now in private hands, often not the original purchasers.

GGTrek

kalych wrote: »

I've given you the government rationale:
https://taxpolicy.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/E3_DeirdreDonaghy.pdf

You're free to consider it during the next election. Maybe SF will deliver a better proposition for the private LLs :rolleyes:

Now I fully understand where all the nonsense spouted by the poster is coming out. No other party in Ireland will do more damage to the private rental market and housing supply than the idiotic socialist policies of SF! I consider SF even worse than the Trotzkysts, who at least are open in their intentions unlike the massive hypocrisy of SF.

lcwill

kalych wrote: »

Also I din't provide any evidence because nobody asked me for any yet. I'm happy to :rolleyes:

Please see the Department of Finance presentation on this issue:
https://taxpolicy.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/E3_DeirdreDonaghy.pdf

Specifically their point at the top of page 2:
"Finally, the proliferation of small landlords leads to a lack of
consistent standards in the residential property market. This
creates difficulties for tenants seeking accommodation but also
for landlords, who may face difficulties in finding good long-term
tenants in a rental sector that has not traditionally been geared
toward this market."

This makes for some pretty scary reading for the average individual landlord...

the_syco

mikemac2 wrote: »

What he doesn't say is Ballymun was not always a failure.

IMO, the Ballymun towers failed due to lack of money for maintenance. They seemed to have been treated like council houses; build them and walk away. Heating faults, lift faults, etc, were ignored. No amenities, shops, etc, also led the failure.

And you couldn't buy your flat even if you wanted to.

terrydel

CatFromHue wrote: »

There's been a long lead in to this housing crisis, it's been building for years. You could argue as far back as 2003 or 2004.

I'm no fan of what FG has done to try and solve the situation, I'm even less of a fan of what the other parties say they would do, but they inherited this problem. They didn't create it.

That's just semantics tho. It doesn't matter whether they created it or not, it's been in their gift to fix it for 8 years, and all they've done is wilfully exacerbate it, hugely, and then pretend it's all come as a big surprise. They've had the chance to do something about it, and made a conscious, political, ideological decision not to. How anyone A) cannot see that and can see it and vote for it, is beyond me. A) makes you an idiot and a w**ker in my opinion.

Old diesel

lcwill wrote: »

This makes for some pretty scary reading for the average individual landlord...

She's not totally wrong imo.

Can you truly base housing policy on lots of people making random* decisions to invest into the property market or to leave it by selling up.

And those same people buying random properties.

And everyone of the 170 k plus suppliers to the market having different ideas on issues ranging from how to set rent right up to what standard a property should meet.

And perhaps the biggest challenge of all - many of the random investors are offering homes that someone else originally built. Even if the investor bought the house brand new.

*it's not random to the individual landlord - but it is random in the wider supply chain context

Garibaldi?

The state made things too difficult for the casual landlord.By casual I do not mean indifferent or or irresponsible. Im thinking of the type of person who just happened to have another property through inheritance or because they bought a long time ago when it was popular for young working people to invest in their twenties. These people were offering solid accommodation at a reasonable cost. They were carrying out maintenance. They generally had an easy-going and friendly relationship with the people who were staying in their property. They paid their taxes and other commitments, such as insurance, which were not overly onerous at the time. It was never going to be a huge earner, yet it meant that a property was being retained and maintained, possibly for a family member in the future, or to enhance income after retirement. The overwhelming raft of charges and regulations and the threats of further interference have put paid to that in no uncertain manner.

Calina

Garibaldi? wrote: »

The state made things too difficult for the casual landlord.By casual I do not mean indifferent or or irresponsible. Im thinking of the type of person who just happened to have another property through inheritance or because they bought a long time ago when it was popular for young working people to invest in their twenties. These people were offering solid accommodation at a reasonable cost. They were carrying out maintenance. They generally had an easy-going and friendly relationship with the people who were staying in their property. They paid their taxes and other commitments, such as insurance, which were not overly onerous at the time. It was never going to be a huge earner, yet it meant that a property was being retained and maintained, possibly for a family member in the future, or to enhance income after retirement. The overwhelming raft of charges and regulations and the threats of further interference have put paid to that in no uncertain manner.

In my experience there were not many of these good ones. There were impossible to deal with clowns who didn't sell on trading up but still saw their first/now investment as "their" home and their tenants as living in "their" home. I have always felt that the rental market in Dublin was immensely damaged by the excessive numbers of casual landlords.

Topgear on Dave

Calina wrote: »

In my experience there were not many of these good ones. There were impossible to deal with clowns who didn't sell on trading up but still saw their first/now investment as "their" home and their tenants as living in "their" home. I have always felt that the rental market in Dublin was immensely damaged by the excessive numbers of casual landlords.

Well, looking at the rtb figures quite a lot of them are gone or going so let's see how we get on without them. :pac:

Old diesel

The attractiveness of REITs to someone like Deirdre as policymaker is the following theoretical advantages.

1) Financial capacity.

2) volume supply from one source.

3) all homes to a consistent standard - for example all A rated new homes.

4) supply in line with preferred planning policy - for example lots of apartments.

5) REITs can be part of delivering brand new housing supply.

6) you as a policy maker can talk directly to someone who you think will actually deliver housing.

7) a REIT in theory should be geared up for longer term sustainable rents plus stay in the market.

I stress the word theoretical here as REITs are far from perfect themselves.

Policymakers have got it wrong in that...

1) a good small landlord is far from being the "bad apple" a policymaker might deem them to be.

2) while at 1500 euros a month plus for a 1 bed - REITs aren't the saviour that Deirdre and Co see them as being.

A sustainable rental market almost certainly needs a variety of supply options with different people involved.

That's because you need to reduce over exposure to one type of supply chain.

Also a variety of thinking in the market should breed improvements as different suppliers outdo each other with continued improvements.

So if hypothetically one supplier figures a way of delivering passive house standard for a similar price per month as someone else's inferior solution - then that other supplier should then look at improving to stay competitive

Mickiemcfist

the_syco wrote: »

IMO, the Ballymun towers failed due to lack of money for maintenance. They seemed to have been treated like council houses; build them and walk away. Heating faults, lift faults, etc, were ignored. No amenities, shops, etc, also led the failure.

And you couldn't buy your flat even if you wanted to.

I agree with all but the last bit, why should people after getting a helping hand with cheap rent then be able to buy the house off the council? Its like giving out to Fr McVerry because you can't buy the hotel room he put you up in, it's for people who need it more to use.

murphaph

A REIT's primary function is to make an attractive enough return to its investors that they keep investing.

Best of luck relying entirely on them once a couple of them control the private rental sector. Then we will actually see legislation going the other way.

Topgear on Dave

A major attraction to me of the small landlords was back 10 to 15 years ago when I left college.

I had little money and was moving jobs regularly. I could just show up and rent a room in a house where ever I needed.

If the small guys doing this disappear I'd have needed months of bank references, work references, a year or multi year lease to satisfy a "professional" landlord. It would just be impossible.

flazio

So does anyone have a realistic solution to all this madness that means all of society can just get along. It's one of the most depressing political battle fields that really shouldn't be a battlefield.

beauf

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

I agree with all but the last bit, why should people after getting a helping hand with cheap rent then be able to buy the house off the council? Its like giving out to Fr McVerry because you can't buy the hotel room he put you up in, it's for people who need it more to use.

It's to end the cycle.

Grumpypants

flazio wrote: »

So does anyone have a realistic solution to all this madness that means all of society can just get along. It's one of the most depressing political battle fields that really shouldn't be a battlefield.

Tax exception for rent under 10k, just like the 14k rent a room relief. If you charge 10,001 you pay tax on it all.

Overnight rent across the country drops to 833 a month, very affordable. And all the empty houses come back on the market.

For me to get 10k after tax I've to charge €1,333 a month.

Topgear on Dave

flazio wrote: »

So does anyone have a realistic solution to all this madness that means all of society can just get along. It's one of the most depressing political battle fields that really shouldn't be a battlefield.

No, it's been a wild ride with every government for at least the last 20 years.

Pretty much all measures are short term and reactionary.

The same folks who complain that house prices are too high here will return to complain if they drop after they have bought.

I watch politicians who complain about lack of housing and demand a "housing emergency" be declared later object to large developments in their constituency.

They will complain about the lack of rentals and celebrate the eradication of the "landlord class"

Etc etc etc

beauf

Calina wrote: »

In my experience there were not many of these good ones. There were impossible to deal with clowns who didn't sell on trading up but still saw their first/now investment as "their" home and their tenants as living in "their" home. I have always felt that the rental market in Dublin was immensely damaged by the excessive numbers of casual landlords.

More because the govt has never put proper rules and controls on how the market works. The govt let it become the wild West.

Mickiemcfist

beauf wrote: »

It's to end the cycle.

Load of bull. I grew up in a private rented house, my mother buying the house wouldn't have instantly changed us or made us more driven to succeed. Good parenting does that, not taking handouts from the government.

Topgear on Dave

beauf wrote: »

More because the govt has never put proper rules and controls on how the market works. The govt let it become the wild West.

At least they're putting in lots of rules now and things are improving. :P

beauf

Old diesel wrote: »

She's not totally wrong imo.

Can you truly base housing policy on lots of people making random* decisions to invest into the property market or to leave it by selling up.

And those same people buying random properties.

And everyone of the 170 k plus suppliers to the market having different ideas on issues ranging from how to set rent right up to what standard a property should meet.

And perhaps the biggest challenge of all - many of the random investors are offering homes that someone else originally built. Even if the investor bought the house brand new.

*it's not random to the individual landlord - but it is random in the wider supply chain context

I don't get your point at all. It's a private rental market. If you want to make identical housing units the govt can build it, or give grants to incentivise that. But as hoc rentals will never be all the same.

The problem is the govt has put all housing provision into private as hoc market.

Old diesel

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

A major attraction to me of the small landlords was back 10 to 15 years ago when I left college.

I had little money and was moving jobs regularly. I could just show up and rent a room in a house where ever I needed.

If the small guys doing this disappear I'd have needed months of bank references, work references, a year or multi year lease to satisfy a "professional" landlord. It would just be impossible.

Things were different back then....

Landlords were still working with houses thar were bought at pre Celtic tiger prices. A house bought even as late as 1996 was a totally different beast in cost terms to the house next door to it bought in 2006.

If a small landlord invested into a home at Celtic Tiger prices then he or she would likely be more stricter on ensuring you have a decent job etc.

Supply is also a key factor here - if you found it hard to get tenants - you might be more inclined to take a chance on someone you think is trying to make a go of things etc.

Whereas when you have tight supply - someone in the exact same situation in 2018 as you were 2003 to 08 era will lose out to someone working in big multinational company in senior role with reams of verfiable references and payslips etc.

This supply scenario also changes the terminating to sell up from one of those things to a big challenge.

The Student

murphaph wrote: »

A REIT's primary function is to make an attractive enough return to its investors that they keep investing.

Best of luck relying entirely on them once a couple of them control the private rental sector. Then we will actually see legislation going the other way.

Exactly

mgn

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

At least they're putting in lots of rules now and things are improving. :P

Improving for who. Plenty of new rules for landlords but nothing for tenants.The can still wreck your house and pay no rent and get away with it.

Old diesel

beauf wrote: »

I don't get your point at all. You think all housing should be clones of each other?

Housing will always vary.

The problem is having to work through 170 k different suppliers interpretation of what's okay.

Do we want the guys who consider 20 k to hit the 2018 regs as excessive to make up a significant share of the supply chain.

I mean if it's a financial thing - ie they cant afford the 20 k then they aren't likely to be financially resilliant enough to be able to depend on as a supplier.

And if it's a case that they see the standards as excessive they are unlikely to get on well with the likelihood in future of having to upgrade properties for lower emissions etc that is seen as one of the (many) things we have to do to address climate change obligations.

It's a tricky one really.

All that's really clear is that policymakers have messed up and everyone who isnt a REIT or didn't get a good deal off NAMA is in bother as a result

beauf

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Load of bull. I grew up in a private rented house, my mother buying the house wouldn't have instantly changed us or made us more driven to succeed. Good parenting does that, not taking handouts from the government.

More to it then that. As estates changed into partial ownership they became far less anti social. You have to look at the overall trend.

Pkiernan

beauf wrote: »

It's to end the cycle.

Except they go on to pop out 8 kids to start the cycle all over again.