Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Blut2

rightmove wrote: »

The LL on below market were caught out by being decent and your point makes no sense since you are only looking at it emotionally from the side of "bad LL's"

RPZ were introduced when most greedy LL had already reached maximum and it was a PR exercise which only hurt sound LL's and eventually all tenants. Infact it could be argued it just ensured a 4% increase at the max out rates and no where else.

What you dont seem to understand is bad policy is bad policy for everyone. SoI will ask the question again

with failing rents surely the rpz is no longer valid

The odds of any Irish political party removing RPZs any time in the next five years are essentially none. Regardless of any debatable logic, the optics of appearing to be pro-landlord are a political deathwish.

In this year's election Sinn Fein won more votes than FF & FG combined in the 18-34 year old demographic, and more than either in the 34-49 year old demographic, almost entirely due to the high rental costs in Ireland. It was the #1 issue by a mile for voters under 50.

Both FF & FG are now determined to try to at least appear to be pro-renter moving forwards, to undermine some of this support for SF. So at absolute best you can hope for them to not do anything anti-landlord, at worst they'll be interfering significantly in the market. And the only alternative, if this government falls, will likely be a government with SF as its largest party. Which won't exactly be putting landlords first.

PommieBast

Dav010 wrote: »

I appreciate that, but I would imagine that there would also be considerable interest in nice properties at that price.

EA are clearly pretending to be busy which is annoying. One of the places I requested a viewing for they have already admitted is still available.

perfectkama

recent eviction ban and natural attrition will see less investment in the more affordable and increase on higher end
Pandemic masks falling supply and Airbnb low demand
with a vaccine and if a quick return to normal stock will dry up
My D1 & D7 search is now showing slightly less vacancies this week with prices holding.

more restrictions on eviction and tenant selection will further hurt, someone keeping a second house bought for off spring or an investment to sell on later will likely leave vacant for longer with less entrants wary

GocRh

brisan wrote: »

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/artane/brookwood-avenue-artane-dublin-2046583/
Both been there a while

1850 in Artane is madness. For that price you can rent a 2 bed apartment in Raheny (shieling square or watermill), kilester or even clontarf.
Not many properties available in nice areas though. It seems that people are just staying put for now.

1900 in Clontarf:
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/clontarf/apartment-glaslyn-clontarf-dublin-2050161/

1800 in Raheny:
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/raheny/watermill-court-watermill-road-raheny-dublin-2059272/#img=1

rightmove

Blut2 wrote: »

The odds of any Irish political party removing RPZs any time in the next five years are essentially none. Regardless of any debatable logic, the optics of appearing to be pro-landlord are a political deathwish.

In this year's election Sinn Fein won more votes than FF & FG combined in the 18-34 year old demographic, and more than either in the 34-49 year old demographic, almost entirely due to the high rental costs in Ireland. It was the #1 issue by a mile for voters under 50.

Both FF & FG are now determined to try to at least appear to be pro-renter moving forwards, to undermine some of this support for SF. So at absolute best you can hope for them to not do anything anti-landlord, at worst they'll be interfering significantly in the market. And the only alternative, if this government falls, will likely be a government with SF as its largest party. Which won't exactly be putting landlords first.

agree but I think the big issue is that the 18-34 year old demographic (who are probably a large number of renters) fail to understand that its not in their interest to have RPZ when rents are falling and even when they got high rents, controls dont work long term. LL stuck on below market or not being able to evict only leads to less rental property in the ares that need it the most and keep rent high, Sold properties have lower capacity (because all the below market rate ones are not sold to investors) for obvious reasons. Maybe this generation have feed too long at the trough of the internet/facebook and cant evaluate the effects of these policies. The way they forgot SF past is a good example (but a different thread)

brisan

GocRh wrote: »

1850 in Artane is madness. For that price you can rent a 2 bed apartment in Raheny (shieling square or watermill), kilester or even clontarf.
Not many properties available in nice areas though. It seems that people are just staying put for now.

1900 in Clontarf:
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/clontarf/apartment-glaslyn-clontarf-dublin-2050161/

1800 in Raheny:
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/raheny/watermill-court-watermill-road-raheny-dublin-2059272/#img=1

Its on Brookwood Avenue ,a prime location ,with every conceivable amenity on you doorstep.
Plus a small block of 6 and it has a good outside space,how many apts have that.
Previously those apts would be gone in a week

brisan

GocRh wrote: »

1850 in Artane is madness. For that price you can rent a 2 bed apartment in Raheny (shieling square or watermill), kilester or even clontarf.
Not many properties available in nice areas though. It seems that people are just staying put for now.

1900 in Clontarf:
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/clontarf/apartment-glaslyn-clontarf-dublin-2050161/

1800 in Raheny:
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/raheny/watermill-court-watermill-road-raheny-dublin-2059272/#img=1

sheiling square are over 2k and a long walk to the dart as are the Watermill
https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/raheny/shieling-square-howth-road-raheny-dublin-2029799/

Assetbacked

rightmove wrote: »

agree but I think the big issue is that the 18-34 year old demographic (who are probably a large number of renters) fail to understand that its not in their interest to have RPZ when rents are falling and even when they got high rents, controls dont work long term. LL stuck on below market or not being able to evict only leads to less rental property in the ares that need it the most and keep rent high, Sold properties have lower capacity (because all the below market rate ones are not sold to investors) for obvious reasons. Maybe this generation have feed too long at the trough of the internet/facebook and cant evaluate the effects of these policies. The way they forgot SF past is a good example (but a different thread)

I don't think it is a case of that age group not remembering SF's past. You have to realise that this past of SF you talk about occurred before this generation were even alive. Arguably, you could go right up until 40 years or more as people do not even take an interest in politics until they are adults.

The under 40s have no experience of SF. However, they have FF who destroyed the economy and FG who oversaw the worst housing crisis in history which has disproportionately affected this generation. If they want an alternative mainstream party, who else is there? It's completely justifiable to vote for SF as this generation when you want to see an alternative to the economic destruction and housing crisis.

rightmove

Assetbacked wrote: »

It's completely justifiable to vote for SF as this generation when you want to see an alternative to the economic destruction and housing crisis.

"They havent gone away you know" -> I think I rest my case but completely disagree with you on the last bit.

Anyhow back on topic or the mods will not be happy

Assetbacked

rightmove wrote: »

"They havent gone away you know" -> I think I rest my case but completely disagree with you on the last bit.

Anyhow back on topic or the mods will not be happy

They haven't gone away but for many they only hear their parents comment on SF and not trusting them. But then they see Eoin O'Broin, Mary Lou, Chris Andrews, Pearse O'Doherty etc and hardly view them as being associated with the supposed terrorism of the past. It's understandable at least but for me it is also justifiable. O'Broin has extensively researched housing; FG put Eoghan Murphy as minister for housing in a time of crisis - that is a reason not to vote FG IMO, regardless of the fact FG have caused thousands of LLs to exit the market the past few years.

rightmove

Assetbacked wrote: »

They haven't gone away but for many they only hear their parents comment on SF and not trusting them. But then they see Eoin O'Broin, Mary Lou, Chris Andrews, Pearse O'Doherty etc and hardly view them as being associated with the supposed terrorism of the past. It's understandable at least but for me it is also justifiable. O'Broin has extensively researched housing; FG put Eoghan Murphy as minister for housing in a time of crisis - that is a reason not to vote FG IMO, regardless of the fact FG have caused thousands of LLs to exit the market the past few years.

they were all at bobbys funeral - remember bobby of they havent gone away fame

agree on your point regards to FG and helping feed the problem

Assetbacked

rightmove wrote: »

they were all at bobbys funeral - remember bobby of they havent gone away fame

agree on your point regards to FG and helping feed the problem

I'm 31 and I'm not SF as I'm in a good position, but I understand why people vote for them of my generation. That Bobby man who died, I had and still have no idea who he was so whatever they say he did that SF have a part of doesn't register with me.

I've been saying it for years, that people cannot dismiss SF as a viable alternative for the under 40s who suffered through the recession and the housing crisis as a result of FF and FG. Dismissing it will invoke the ire of that generation and lead to anger voting to SF and other populists.

rightmove

Assetbacked wrote: »

I'm 31 and I'm not SF as I'm in a good position, but I understand why people vote for them of my generation. That Bobby man who died, I had and still have no idea who he was so whatever they say he did that SF have a part of doesn't register with me.

I've been saying it for years, that people cannot dismiss SF as a viable alternative for the under 40s who suffered through the recession and the housing crisis as a result of FF and FG. Dismissing it will invoke the ire of that generation and lead to anger voting to SF and other populists.

I think the under 40's need to educate themselves and not just say that doesnt register with me.

Everyone suffered during the recession including me... I would still not vote for sf. unfortunately youth is wasted on the young

LuasSimon

The Meat factories and other minimum wage slave operations are been protected by Fine Gael and Fianna Fail as they cause significant spikes in Covid figures causing further lockdown measures impacting us all greatly......

Why are FG & FF protecting Larry " I havent gone away " Goodman ??

He wont even pay his taxs in this country?

Assetbacked

LuasSimon wrote: »

The Meat factories and other minimum wage slave operations are been protected by Fine Gael and Fianna Fail as they cause significant spikes in Covid figures causing further lockdown measures impacting us all greatly......

Why are FG & FF protecting Larry " I havent gone away " Goodman ??

Farmers, big agri businesses and meat eaters who won't cut down on their meat consumption is the reason they had a free pass.

beauf

Assetbacked wrote: »

I....I've been saying it for years, that people cannot dismiss SF as a viable alternative...

SF need to put together some viable economic and housing policies before they have any credibility other than a protest vote.

Assetbacked

beauf wrote: »

SF need to put together some viable economic and housing policies before they have any credibility other than a protest vote.

Not necessarily, the housing crisis needs dramatic progress in 3 years or they'll walk in. That means rents plummeting and houses becoming significantly more affordable.

The comeback "Well, SF will make it worse" is irrelevant as there is no evidence when they have never been in government!

Lux23

rightmove wrote: »

I think the under 40's need to educate themselves and not just say that doesnt register with me.

Everyone suffered during the recession including me... I would still not vote for sf. unfortunately youth is wasted on the young

And experience on the old.

Hubertj

Assetbacked wrote: »

Not necessarily, the housing crisis needs dramatic progress in 3 years or they'll walk in. That means rents plummeting and houses becoming significantly more affordable.

The comeback "Well, SF will make it worse" is irrelevant as there is no evidence when they have never been in government!

i think whoever governs needs a 10 yr plan with proper milestones to show real progress. None of this "20k houses per year" nonsense. For example, the announcement of the scheme is Shankill recently is about 600 social and affordable houses that will actually be built (or has already started). Problem is how long did that take from concept to starting construction.
I think if people see more real progress like this it can start to change the perception.
I also want to know what the additional operational costs are to manage and maintain all the additional social houses that will be built. Does that bell end O'Brion include that is his little book?

AlanG

brisan wrote: »

IMO all are in a RPZ ( not that that bothers a lot of landlords ) so by reducing the rent the landlord is stuck with lower rents for years as the are limited by the yearly increase they can impose.
Head in the sand stuff that rents will recover to pre Covid levels

Most economists agree that the way out of this recession is controlled but significant inflation by basically printing money and as all countries in the Euro Zone are in trouble the ECB is likely to go with that. This will result in a likely real decrease in rents (and wages) but it is quite possible that Nominal rents will remain relatively static over the next few years.

RPZs are based on nominal monitory values, not real values so if a Landlord thinks the Nominal rents are likely to be stable over the coming years it would not make sense to reduce rents now.

beauf

Assetbacked wrote: »

Not necessarily, the housing crisis needs dramatic progress in 3 years or they'll walk in. That means rents plummeting and houses becoming significantly more affordable.

The comeback "Well, SF will make it worse" is irrelevant as there is no evidence when they have never been in government!

They might walk in. But there's a large gap in how their policies will be funded and the long term effects of them.

It's a bit like this thread. People are only focused on the market as they want to see it. They are not really looking at the facts in context of the bigger picture.

beauf

Hubertj wrote: »

i think whoever governs needs a 10 yr plan with proper milestones to show real progress. None of this "20k houses per year" nonsense. For example, the announcement of the scheme is Shankill recently is about 600 social and affordable houses that will actually be built (or has already started). Problem is how long did that take from concept to starting construction.
I think if people see more real progress like this it can start to change the perception.
I also want to know what the additional operational costs are to manage and maintain all the additional social houses that will be built. Does that bell end O'Brion include that is his little book?

There's been a lot of smoke and mirrors around the figures. They are being creative with the figures. What has been claimed Vs actually delivered is worth looking at.

ExMachina1000

From the data available its clear that there wont be any significant drop in Dublin rental prices.
Increases at a continuous rate are more likely

beauf

AlanG wrote: »

Most economists agree that the way out of this recession is controlled but significant inflation by basically printing money and as all countries in the Euro Zone are in trouble the ECB is likely to go with that. This will result in a likely real decrease in rents (and wages) but it is quite possible that Nominal rents will remain relatively static over the next few years.

RPZs are based on nominal monitory values, not real values so if a Landlord thinks the Nominal rents are likely to be stable over the coming years it would not make sense to reduce rents now.

People don't realise all the effects of a RPZ. They only see the bits they want to see.

Rents continue to rise with the introduction of the RPZ and it will make it harder to reduce rents. Etc..

Beigepaint

beauf wrote: »

They might walk in. But there's a large gap in how their policies will be funded and the long term effects of them.

It's a bit like this thread. People are only focused on the market as they want to see it. They are not really looking at the facts in context of the bigger picture.

I’m also 31 and I agree with assetbacked.

Non-rich people in our age group know that if we want to buy a house it is swimming against the tide of FG/FF property inflation policies.

I have good reason to be anti-SF but there’s a part of me that says “f*ck it, I need a house, SF will put in place policies to build more houses”.

SF almost got a majority in the last election, despite the violent past, because FF/FG gifted it to them with recent housing policy.

Dav010

Beigepaint wrote: »

I’m also 31 and I agree with assetbacked.

Non-rich people in our age group know that if we want to buy a house it is swimming against the tide of FG/FF property inflation policies.

I have good reason to be anti-SF but there’s a part of me that says “f*ck it, I need a house, SF will put in place policies to build more houses”.

SF almost got a majority in the last election, despite the violent past, because FF/FG gifted it to them with recent housing policy.

One of the standout moments for me in the lead up to the last election was Pearse Doherty on one of the late night panels telling voters that SF was committed to spending €40b to implement their policies and bring about “real change”, when asked where the money would come from to build all these houses and how planning laws would be adhered to, he completely waffled his way from then on, when pressed again, he simply couldn’t offer a coherent plan for it.

Politicians promise lots of things they know people want to hear, but only an idiot would think a SF government is going to build tens of thousands of houses in a short period, to house those that need them. History has shown us that when the State gets into development, it is rarely on time or budget.

rightmove

Beigepaint wrote: »

I’m also 31 and I agree with assetbacked.

Non-rich people in our age group know that if we want to buy a house it is swimming against the tide of FG/FF property inflation policies.

I have good reason to be anti-SF but there’s a part of me that says “f*ck it, I need a house, SF will put in place policies to build more houses”.

SF almost got a majority in the last election, despite the violent past, because FF/FG gifted it to them with recent housing policy.

when I bought first I was paying most of my money out on renting places getting smaller and smaller. i had to buy where I could (not the middle class 'old area getting better' routine) far outta town. I was up against kids with parental help and investors buying with the banks money. I seemed to be the only one actually buying off the sweat of my brow. Its never easy, however with all the anti LL measures you are handing the keys to the reits who are far more callous and you will be the first generation who will not end up 'thinking' about the first house as a possible rental stream to offset never taking a pension out etc or having to rent coz the jobs are elsewhere and you have to rent again like I did. Voting SF will put the cherry on this. It amazing how young ppl are voting to destroy there own futures. I understand obstreperous tendencies e.g. brexit but seriously you should be lobbying politicians for more rental properties to reduce rents not for measures attacking small LL who were the only ones giving a good deal in the past.

Beigepaint

Dav010 wrote: »

One of the standout moments for me in the lead up to the last election was Pearse Doherty on one of the late night panels telling voters that SF was committed to spending €40b to implement their policies and bring about “real change”, when asked where the money would come from to build all these houses and how planning laws would be adhered to, he completely waffled his way from then on, when pressed again, he simply couldn’t offer a coherent plan for it.

Politicians promise lots of things they know people want to hear, but only an idiot would think a SF government is going to build tens of thousands of houses in a short period, to house those that need them. History has shown us that when the State gets into development, it is rarely on time or budget.

I think Trump and Brexit prove that an electorate will proudly vote for something that sounds nice, even if eggheads like you and me produce data that says it’s not achievable.

Dav010

Beigepaint wrote: »

I think Trump and Brexit prove that an electorate will proudly vote for something that sounds nice, even if eggheads like you and me produce data that says it’s not achievable.

Twas ever thus, since biblical times.

beauf

Dav010 wrote: »

One of the standout moments for me in the lead up to the last election was Pearse Doherty on one of the late night panels telling voters that SF was committed to spending €40b to implement their policies and bring about “real change”, when asked where the money would come from to build all these houses and how planning laws would be adhered to, he completely waffled his way from then on, when pressed again, he simply couldn’t offer a coherent plan for it....

..and that was before Covid blew a massive hole economy, stopped all building, for half the year, and all the other stuff.

Perhaps one of the reasons SF have gone very quiet is that however unrealistic their plans were previously that gap gas widened enormously. How do they deliver what they promised while restarting the economy, on a fraction of the income.

Its very possible that we might have a lot unintuitive outcomes. For example WFH in this scale in unprecedented. But didn't expect the tax issues with working from another country, to mean WFH is geo fenced in many organisations.