Residential Tenancies (Prevention of Family Homelessness) Bill 2018

GGTrek

Another beautifully Newspeak style named bill from SF which bill be discussed this Thursday (very likely to go to committee stage if FF abstains again):
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/dail-schedule/?selecteddate=2019-03-28


"an Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 to give greater protection to households renting from buy-to-let landlords. Under the Act it would no longer be legal to evict tenants in buy-to-let properties on the grounds that the property is to be sold"


Maybe the usual anti-landlord Eoin Ó Broin is worried that the anti-eviction bill so dear to the hard left will be killed sooner or later due to the many uncostitutional provisions in it and he is trying a simpler bill in order to at least manage to get something approved.

GGTrek

Debate is here:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-03-28/67/

4th of April this crazy bill will be voted. The debate answers many questions about right to sell vacant that were put on other threads. Government is against, but I guess the FF populists will abstain again and next 4th aprill will pass second stage and go to Committee stage.

Minister main statement (for once he is speaking the thruth):

"Deputy Ó Broin's Bill is unconstitutional because it is an unjust attack on a sub-group of people for a societal problem that is far more complex than simply someone selling property. There is a link but it is far more complex than that. The Deputy's comparison with the commercial sector is wrong. If a person has a lease in place, even in the residential sector, it cannot be breached with a notice to quit. Even if the Bill was constitutional and passed that barrier, that provision would not be retrospective. It would not help anybody renting today but it would drive landlords out."

Askthe EA

GGTrek wrote: »

to give greater protection to households renting from buy-to-let landlords

Only buy to let landlords? So not accidental landlords? How does he propose to make the distinction? Ask the banks to provide the names of all their BTL mortgage holders?

scheister

GGTrek wrote: »

Another beautifully Newspeak style named bill from SF which bill be discussed this Thursday (very likely to go to committee stage if FF abstains again):
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/dail-schedule/?selecteddate=2019-03-28


"an Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 to give greater protection to households renting from buy-to-let landlords. Under the Act it would no longer be legal to evict tenants in buy-to-let properties on the grounds that the property is to be sold"


Maybe the usual anti-landlord Eoin Ó Broin is worried that the anti-eviction bill so dear to the hard left will be killed sooner or later due to the many uncostitutional provisions in it and he is trying a simpler bill in order to at least manage to get something approved.

The left are making the same mistakes are the government are at the moment. They see a problem their solution is to fix one small part of it and not look at the bigger picture.

If you ban landlords selling as reason for eviction they will simple find another reason. A family member will move in for 4 months then they will sell.

If you want a functioning rental system in Ireland attacking and limiting what the landlords can do is not going to work nor encouraging people to become landlord. You need to look at doing a few things together to find the happy medium between keeping the tenants and landlord both happy. I could not start to answer that question as i am sure there are greater minds on here that could answer it

Askthe EA

I think its pretty simple actually. Build social (and more importantly affordable housing) and lots of it, soon.

overkill602

just ban lls and build free houses 4 everybody

tretorn

Would it be possible to stop these huge conglomerates from buying up entire housing developments for rent.

How can young working people hoping to buy an apartment compete with these millionaires.

I would like exact figures for how many of these apartment blocks are being bought up with Russian money for example, I wish some journalist would dig up this information rather than bringing me stories about people with six children living in hotel rooms.

We hear all about travellers, and people who never work and non nationals but we never hear about working people paying eight and nine hundred euros and upwards to rent a room in a shared house. They see an apartment block going up for sale and as it nears completion we discover than its been bought in advance to be rented and rents will be astronomical in order that the letting company can recoup their costs.

I would like some limits to be put on this activity now.

mikemac2

The link shows it was first introduced for discussion in October 2018 and here we are almost in April and it's still being discussed

Is this considered fast or slow for legislation? I don't know realy. Seems slow to me.

Amirani

tretorn wrote: »

Would it be possible to stop these huge conglomerates from buying up entire housing developments for rent.

We need more apartments available to renters in our cities - this is probably the most pressing need in residential accommodation at the moment. Why would you want to ban housing developments being made available for renting?

Furthermore; it's hardly a reasonable restriction to place on developers. It would have a very negative impact on the amount of new development.

tretorn

Amirani wrote: »

We need more apartments available to renters in our cities - this is probably the most pressing need in residential accommodation at the moment. Why would you want to ban housing developments being made available for renting?

Furthermore; it's hardly a reasonable restriction to place on developers. It would have a very negative impact on the amount of new development.

Because a lot of people having to rent these apartments are paying the equivalent of a mortgage but cant actually buy these apartments because conglomerates are buying them. The young people are building no equity in any property and paying huge rent out of after tax income. They get no rent relief on maybe a third of their salary which is going on rent and their income maybe too high to qualify for a council house.

How are young working people supposed to settle down and have families if so much of their income is going on rent. These are the people who are building our economy and not the early school leavers with numerous children who are putting their hand out for every benefit going. Its all very well renting rooms in shared houses when you are in your early twenties but after that people on decent incomes want to buy and they are being priced out of their own city by conglomerates.

This country is a mess.

Amirani

tretorn wrote: »

Because a lot of people having to rent these apartments are paying the equivalent of a mortgage but cant actually buy these apartments because conglomerates are buying them. The young people are building no equity in any property and paying huge rent out of after tax income. They get no rent relief on maybe a third of their salary which is going on rent and their income maybe too high to qualify for a council house.

How are young working people supposed to settle down and have families if so much of their income is going on rent. These are the people who are building our economy and not the early school leavers with numerous children who are putting their hand out for every benefit going. Its all very well renting rooms in shared houses when you are in your early twenties but after that people on decent incomes want to buy and they are being priced out of their own city by conglomerates.

This country is a mess.

Not every young person wants to settle down and buy a house. Renting is a preferable option for many people, as it gives them flexibility.

What we need more than anything at the moment is more affordable rentals. Your suggestion to ban developers from developing apartment schemes to be used for renting achieves the opposite result.

zreba

scheister wrote: »

The left are making the same mistakes are the government are at the moment. They see a problem their solution is to fix one small part of it and not look at the bigger picture.

If you ban landlords selling as reason for eviction they will simple find another reason. A family member will move in for 4 months then they will sell.

If you want a functioning rental system in Ireland attacking and limiting what the landlords can do is not going to work nor encouraging people to become landlord. You need to look at doing a few things together to find the happy medium between keeping the tenants and landlord both happy. I could not start to answer that question as i am sure there are greater minds on here that could answer it

Yeah, but who would listen to a voice of reason?

zreba

Is it only me having this feeling that more the government is trying to fix the housing problem the worse it gets?
All the populist emergency legislations only cause more distruption and work against the people in the long run.

tretorn

Amirani wrote: »

Not every young person wants to settle down and buy a house. Renting is a preferable option for many people, as it gives them flexibility.

What we need more than anything at the moment is more affordable rentals. Your suggestion to ban developers from developing apartment schemes to be used for renting achieves the opposite result.

I am not saying stop developers from building apartment schemes.

I am saying we need to look at conglomerates buying these entire blocks so they can charge high rents to young working people who can get mortgages for only 2.5 times their salary. The young people could afford mortgages as their rent outlay is the equivalent of a mortgage but they cant buy because increasingly entire apartment blocks are being bought by wealthy investers, many of whom do not even live in this country.

Handing over eight and nine hundred thousand plus more for utilities for a room in a shared house is not where young working people want to be as they head towards thirty. Having to live at home with your parents because you cant afford to pay rent even though you are twenty six and in fulltime work with a good salary is desperate too.

People in their mid to late twenties for the most part would like to own their own home and the Government is doing nothing whatsoever to help them, as I said they dont even get tax relief on the rent paid and some of these workers are handing over 40% of their income so the Government can support people who never intend to do a days work in their lives. These people can get a house off the council and it will be a lot nicer than some accommodation working people are renting.

Subutai

mikemac2 wrote: »

The link shows it was first introduced for discussion in October 2018 and here we are almost in April and it's still being discussed

Is this considered fast or slow for legislation? I don't know realy. Seems slow to me.

Private members' bills move slowly as they have to be taken in the time given to the party, and they compete with legislation being moved on a wide variety of other issues.

Passing it ain't the aim. Very little of what is proposed by private members (as distinct from government members) ever passes, even in our current minority government where an unprecedented amount of it has passed. Most of what does pass is relatively inconsequential.

The papers love to say that the government have been defeated and an opposition bill has passed. This is almost always at second stage. Any old ****e can pass second stage in the current Oireachtas. Most of it dies in committee stage, where the government simply refuse the money message neccessry to progress it.

The aim of the opposition isn't to pass it. It is to raise the issue in a way that gets it covered by the media. It's a successful strategy in that regard, although it does risk making people cynical about the legislative process when they think bills have passed into law that are nowhere near being enacted.

Ray Palmer

tretorn wrote: »

Because a lot of people having to rent these apartments are paying the equivalent of a mortgage but cant actually buy these apartments because conglomerates are buying them. The young people are building no equity in any property and paying huge rent out of after tax income. They get no rent relief on maybe a third of their salary which is going on rent and their income maybe too high to qualify for a council house.

How are young working people supposed to settle down and have families if so much of their income is going on rent. These are the people who are building our economy and not the early school leavers with numerous children who are putting their hand out for every benefit going. Its all very well renting rooms in shared houses when you are in your early twenties but after that people on decent incomes want to buy and they are being priced out of their own city by conglomerates.

This country is a mess.

Rent is normally more expensive than a mortgage so nothing strange about it. The moments rent was cheaper than a mortgage were the exception.
You seem to be confusing what you want to happen and who pays for it. It is not up to private individuals or companies to provide cheaper accommodation. Why dont you work for less money or give your salary to charity? It is very easy to demand something if it costs you nothing and you expect others to pay.
How about who you expect to fund what you want and how it will be done instead of listing what you want?
Why am I not allowed charge the market rate to a new tenant after letting a tenant stay on low rent? The neighbouring landlords charges an extra €500 a month than me for the same property. Punishment for being nice to a tenant.

Topgear on Dave

tretorn wrote: »

Would it be possible to stop these huge conglomerates from buying up entire housing developments for rent.

People came on here and in the media complaining about their small time local landlords and "accidental landlords" and they wanted the business professionalised.

Well this is what they wanted and what they got.
The big companies will be run professionally, legally and the tenant will be just a number to them.


We have a shortage of rentals as well as homes to buy so putting them out of business would only hurt renters more. Not everybody wants to buy.

Topgear on Dave

scheister wrote: »

If you want a functioning rental system in Ireland.........

Do you really believe that many of the campaigners are interested in a functioning rental system? Most seem to be making hay from beating the government over the head with it in the media.


Lots of the TDs will argue vociferously against any encouragement given to landlords to provide more beds despite a rental shortage.
They will scream confidently about what needs to be done and run to stay in opposition as soon as they are elected. :pac:

Fol20

tretorn wrote: »

Would it be possible to stop these huge conglomerates from buying up entire housing developments for rent.

How can young working people hoping to buy an apartment compete with these millionaires.

I would like exact figures for how many of these apartment blocks are being bought up with Russian money for example, I wish some journalist would dig up this information rather than bringing me stories about people with six children living in hotel rooms.

We hear all about travellers, and people who never work and non nationals but we never hear about working people paying eight and nine hundred euros and upwards to rent a room in a shared house. They see an apartment block going up for sale and as it nears completion we discover than its been bought in advance to be rented and rents will be astronomical in order that the letting company can recoup their costs.

I would like some limits to be put on this activity now.

Its never good to put limits on this type of stuff. People will either find a way around it or they will not bother maintaininf the property like what happens in ny.

Fol20

Amirani wrote: »

Not every young person wants to settle down and buy a house. Renting is a preferable option for many people, as it gives them flexibility.

What we need more than anything at the moment is more affordable rentals. Your suggestion to ban developers from developing apartment schemes to be used for renting achieves the opposite result.

I agree with most of what you say bar the very end obout build to rent. I beleive its much healthier if there is a mix bwtween owner occupier and renters vs all renting. Similar to all social tenants being out into gettos

4ensic15

If the apartments were not being pre-sold many would not be built at all. That would worsen the housing crisis as supply would be impacted.
IF apartments were sold and built many would be bought by owner-occupiers. Renting is a more efficient use of accommodation so in a crisis the current situation is, in fact, the best thing that could happen.

Subutai

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the apartments were not being pre-sold many would not be built at all. That would worsen the housing crisis as supply would be impacted.
IF apartments were sold and built many would be bought by owner-occupiers. Renting is a more efficient use of accommodation so in a crisis the current situation is, in fact, the best thing that could happen.

Renting can increase density, although largely in houses rather than apartments. I wouldn't confuse that with an increase in efficiency. The increased density comes at a cost, largely of delayed lives. People wait longer to have children, start pensions, etc., which imposes a long term cost to the exchequer separate from the personal pain those choices represent.

Primarily though, you're talking about adding an inefficient middle man who doesn't add any real economic value. Like car salesmen they're a necessary evil of the current model. Some are more efficient than others of course, with sufficiently large ones offering real advantages in tax efficiency, professional services, economies of scale in areas like maintainance, and sufficient market information to more effectively mediate supply and demand.

hmmm

tretorn wrote: »

Would it be possible to stop these huge conglomerates from buying up entire housing developments for rent..

This would decrease supply - in many cases the apartments would instead never be built.

A developer these days can pre-sell an apartment block to a REIT type, and knows before they build it that they can make a profit. If they have to build it, then try and sell the apartments, it's a lot more risky. Better to build a house which they know will sell.

4ensic15

hmmm wrote: »

This would decrease supply - in many cases the apartments would instead never be built.

A developer these days can pre-sell an apartment block to a REIT type, and knows before they build it that they can make a profit. If they have to build it, then try and sell the apartments, it's a lot more risky. Better to build a house which they know will sell.

Developers can't get funding for spec builds. The fund pays for the works throughout construction.

GGTrek

Fortunately the bill was rejected today:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-04/19/

FF voted against, so the bill had no chance.

4ensic15

GGTrek wrote: »

Fortunately the bill was rejected today:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-04/19/

FF voted against, so the bill had no chance.

It is only a temporary reprieve. They'll be back.