Govt to do 'everything' to prevent evictions - McEntee

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742544#Comment_119742544

No, my point was that inflation on direct costs isn't the only thing a professional service provider has to worry about. They have to pay inflation on salaries including their own salary. Doesn't hold for an amateur landlord obviously.

My question was, what does the impact of inflation on rents have to do with the topic of this thread?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742638#Comment_119742638

Because the 2 percent RPZ limits were brought up as a béal bocht attempt saying they were unfair if the landlord has to replace furniture etc in the property given the CPI index. Wilfully ignoring the proliferation of tax reliefs and deductions available for landlords for this very purpose.

Few are willing to respond to that, because it is a glowing red signal how far government has gone to make landlording as risk-free as is possible without just bunging money to landlords for having a pulse.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742939#Comment_119742939

The topic/thread is on a proposal to end any issuing of termination notices.

My question to you is the following, if a landlord in a free economy wants to issue the legal notice period of over 6 months to sell their property sould they be allowed to do so and if not, why not?

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742980#Comment_119742980

Selling the property is irrelevant, because the government isn't proposing to legally restrain the sale of property. The government is proposing restraining evictions in a time limited manner in the interests of the common good in response to a social emergency.

You need to reconcile that the constitution recognises that there is a common good clause that may restrain absolutist property rights.

There is a time when government may turn around and say:

"for the next few months, we don't care about your nephew PJ moving up to do a master's in UCD/ your wish to paint the house and jack up the rent/ that the property market is hot. There's an emergency and we are going to respond"

We're pretty much at that point. And frankly many people don't give a f*ck about the landlord whinge. A lot of them are maximalists who think the government should tend to their discreet asset sweating interests irrespective context.

Landlords have had it good, and do have it good. You need to start studying the common good clause in the constitution, because you have the blinkers on about your property rights to the exclusion of all else. In the adult world, the government is empowered to act within that clause. You can bang on about "free economy" all you want as if you're Ayn Rand. This provision has always been there.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743039#Comment_119743039

That was a very long winded answer - to summarise you are saying that no a landlord should not be allowed to issue the legally required 6 month notice period.

The reason that you are giving is that the government gets to decide what is in the common good and restrict individual rights.

Okey dokey

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743103#Comment_119743103

No that's not what I said, because no such proposal is being floated by government, me or anyone else. What you have is a time-limited proposal to restrain evictions in the interests of the common good.

And FYI, if you're so fond of a "free market", you'll have no objections to government ending the subsidy of landlords' commercial operations via tax reliefs on interest, renovations, mortgage protection insurance etc etc.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743241#Comment_119743241

refusal to answer a direct question is politician 101, they just rely on people being stupid enough not to notice.

You can give it the politician swerve all you like trying to answer different questions, but its a yes/no question.

You are saying it is OK for a landlord to issue a 6 month notice as per the law to sell their property?

Or you are saying No, the government are overriding the law 'for the common good'

Who gets to unilaterally define the common good, the government?

Not the people who got us into this housing crisis mess surely - have they suddenly become experts on the common good?

I think any such move will be disastrous for the rental market and not for the common good, so it is clearly open to debate and not something to be set unilaterally to override the law of the land by government.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743305#Comment_119743305

Of course the government decides on policy as to what the common good is, we live in a democracy and that's what they are charged with doing every time a government is formed. They are constrianed by the constitution and ultimately the SC to act with proportionality, but democracies are in the business of the common good. Otherwise we completely submit to oligarchy.

You already got your answer by the way, that you didn't like it is up to you.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743404#Comment_119743404

I got the answer, I repeated it and you replied 'No' indicating it wasn't your answer, as I said politician 101.

It is not normal policy to override legal rights and any constitutional challenge may well come down to the definition of common good.

In the case of Covid it is clear what the common good is.

In the case of housing policy it is open to debate and the government acting unilaterally (to override normal process and the law) on something as political as housing policy is not a good look for a free economy.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743441#Comment_119743441

What are you talking about "acting unilaterally"? Every government with a working majority "acts unilaterally" in legislating and implementing policy. That's what they are charged with doing, the people give them their mandate and they act. Otherwise we would have complete stasis.

Btw, new legislation or statutory instruments enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. The Supreme Court does not come riding in on a white horse.

A case would need to be taken by an individual levelling a credible claim that the government's action has disproportionately restrained their property rights in a discreet circumstance.

I'll circle back to your notion of a "free economy" and highlight the numerous sweetheart reliefs given by the taxpayer to landlords which essentially reduce risk as close to zero as possible. That's the taxpayer subsidising commercial activity and don't you forget it. If you think that's tickety-boo and completely "free market" you're in a world of delusion.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743526#Comment_119743526

lol, every government can declare something/anything in the public good and override laws and personal property rights?

The majority of professional economists on the planet will tell you it's a bad idea to have government interfere in the functioning of any market.

We are not taking about regulation here we are talking about an extraordinary ban on issuing legal notice to end a lease to sell a property.

The professional economist view is that common good is best served by not interfering in the market.

So now we have established that the common good in these matters is up for debate, can the government act unilaterally on anything under the constitution under the assumption that it is in the common good, and the government definition of common good is taken as fact?

Maybe the power from Covid restrictions has gone to their head.

You still haven't given a straight answer on whether a landlord can issue a 6 month termination notice under the law and sell their property.......

Its' pretty clear you are a No on that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742939#Comment_119742939

No the 2% limit in RPZs is unfair because it limits the value of the asset to the benefit of the tenant, market demand should determine rents. Rents will only go as high as people can afford. If we feel this approach is required to help the most vulnerable in society the same principal should be applied to energy, transport, food and health care. Its not because these industries have lobbyist with deep pockets, when the rental market is cornered by professional landlords expect to see lobbyists start to erode tenant rights.

It takes 8 years for a landlord to recoup the cost of replacing furniture and in most rentals you'd be lucky if it lasts that long.

Rentals are designed to be shorter term, at the end of the day its an asset owned by the landlord and as such they should be able to reclaim it once reasonable notice is issued to the tenant I feel the current RTB rules provide sufficient notice periods depending on the length of the tenancy. If you want longer term security in where you live get a mortgage and buy a house or alternatively sign a long term lease if you can find one. There is also a lot of jealousy on this thread regarding landlords owning the property once the mortgage is paid, that's the same as how the majority of other business operate. I wouldn't expect a car rental company or a hotel to allow me to use their services for free once they have cleared their debits or I wouldn't expect a booking I have made to prevent the sale of the business or any of its assets.

If people need supports in putting a roof over their head the government need to step in and provide it, rentals are being run as a business and not charities. If the government needs support in meeting the needs of it citizens its needs to sit down with landlords and work together to form a plan to solve this crisis. The current headless chicken approach by the government and the lack of consultation is creating uncertainty and more uncertainty is the last thing the rental market needs at the minute we need further investment not less.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743670#Comment_119743670

Simply put, It's not the government's job to enhance the value of your asset. They work for the common good, not for the benefit of a narrow asset class owners.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119743628#Comment_119743628

Which professional economists view?

You gather 10 economists in a room and you'll get 100 contradicting opinions.

That's an appeal to authority you didn't even bother to buttress and falls apart immediately.

What exactly do you mean "unilaterally"? Every government with a working majority is empowered to enact legislation and implement policy. And legislation enjoys the presumption of constitutionality until found otherwise by the SC. That's not "unilateral", it's called democracy and the separation of powers.

On your question, a landlord is already able to issue a termination notice (provided it is issued in a valid fashion and for a valid purpose). What exactly are you asking?

There is no proposal to legally block landlords selling their property either. They may find it more difficult to do so, but thems the breaks, and that's an issue you need to take up with the banking industry. We're at a point where the common good will start prevailing over the narrow interest of the property owner in a time-limited fashion.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744190#Comment_119744190

But its also not their job to devalue rentals either but they are doing a fantastic job of that. Problem is the government is not working for the benefit of those that need it, they are trying to strong arm landlords into doing it on their behalf and instead of using a carrot they keep getting a bigger stick when the last one breaks.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744216#Comment_119744216

You're making my point for me, if something is highly contentious as to whether it is for the long term public good it shouldn't meet the constitutional bar of being evidently in the public good. I'd be amazed if the advice they get doesn't reflect that.

That should be reserved for something like Covid, which was the first application in the history of the state.

If it's temporary for a period of time what measurable criteria or numbers will lead to it being lifted?

Are these things that the government will supply and why haven't they supplied them up to now?

Any line of questioning on this will open a massive can of worms for the government.

We have people starving all over the world and dying of diseases cheap medication could cure, it's in the interest of 'the common good' for the government to take your playstation off you, sell it, and wire the money to them. They don't do that because of something called property rights, and the repercussions of not respecting those are that people stop investing in property/buying playstations/etc.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744288#Comment_119744288

You don't need any more carrots, you've had a bellyfull.

I'd more worried about interest rates "devaluing" your property than anything else. And quite frankly, the government since the 90s has basically made landlording a close to risk free proposition as is possible. You've enjoyed decade of both asset appreciation and rental yield growth, both bearing down on 90 percent at this stage. All presided over by a sweetheart's charter from government.

If you're so concerned about government interference, start with lobbying them to stop bunging you no-lose tax relief subsidies for almost every aspect of the "business"

You'll have to find a bigger fiddle to make anyone feel sorry for you.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744331#Comment_119744331

A time limited eviction moritorium cannot credibly compared to the seizure of property in legal terms and it's faintly ridiculous to suggest that it is. It is a measured, minor and time limited diminution of an aspect property rights, and does not even approach the same ballpark as seizure of property. Did you wince of embarrassment at all as you typed that at all?

Worded correctly, and in a proportionate manner, it's pretty obvious that a moritorium would survive any legal challenge. And indeed, such a moritorium has already been imposed in the not so distant past.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744382#Comment_119744382

Why is it time limited?

What criteria that are not currently met are going to be met at the end of any pre-defined period of time.

It needs to be time limited to be constitutional but the obvious problem there is that you might be asked to justify a time window, where you will have to define something that only applies during that window.

The war in ukraine? nope open ended

Cost of living? nope open ended

Build up of landlords exiting market due to covid restrictions? lol, nope we are doubling down on that one

It's a desperate grasp for a get out of jail card, no doubt inspired by the recent Covid get out of jail card for them.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744415#Comment_119744415

If you know anything about how the Supreme Court operates over the decades, you'll know the court is laothe to step into matters of public policy, and given the diminution of property rights is so minor, narrow in-scope, and time-limited, it would take a very particular set of circumstances for a landlord to establish locus standi to even get to the court, never mind win a case.

"I want to sell muh property" would be the weakest of all cases, because the government is not legally restraining the sale of the property. It makes it less attractive for a bank to issue a mortgage on it for those months sure, but that's not the government doing that. Such a case would fail.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744475#Comment_119744475

You didn't answer the question again:

Why is it time limited?

Sunny Disposition

Completely simplistic approach from the Government again, no wonder Irish housing policy has failed so badly.

The reality is it should be quite easy to evict anyone from a property if they go a couple of months without paying. How anyone can feel a landlord should not get their property back from someone who refuses to pay them for it is genuinely unfathomable.

Lots of landlords have called it a day and loads more are going to, for the simple reason the law is against them.

If there was some common sense in policy people would not enter, smaller landlords would actually invest rather than flee. But increasingly the premise of all housing policy is wrong; it's increasingly about helping freeloaders rather than genuine tenants and landlords.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744505#Comment_119744505

Simply put, because it's government policy and the government has decided that in the common good that people freezing on the streets and spilling out of emergency accommodation in winter is not something they want to happen. And the SC is unlikely to grumble. This is one of those circumstances where the common good carve-out in the constitution will be obvious across the bench. The SC has never been in the habit of stepping into public policy matters unless there has been an egrigious infringement of a fundamental right.

There is no fundemental right for optimal conditions to sell a property.

Again, the diminution is so limited that a case will fall flat on its face.

And again, locus standi will be hard to achieve on "I want to flog the gaff", because the government isn't restraining that. It won't even make it to the SC.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744540#Comment_119744540

If its in the common good and stopping people from spilling out of emergency accommodation in winter, then why dont they do it every winter?

Or all the time?

Maybe its because they know such a move falls afoul of property rights and would not be found constitutional, so instead they hope that a time limited option may last the few months through the winter before the court shoots it down. If an eviction ban did not interfere with property rights it would be permanent already.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744591#Comment_119744591

To do so every winter would perhaps enter the realms of disproportionate.

The last moritorium didn't end up in front of the SC (don't know did anyone take a case and failed locus standi even).

Hypothetically, if there was a SC case, the bench would be judging the merits of the circumstances, not second guessing if the government is going to do X or Y in following years. That would be the SC stepping into the realm of politics, which they themselves aren't entitled to do.

Rustyman101

Housing policy is a shambles in Ireland, government has tried to abdicate their responsibility over to the private sector the last number of years.

Combined with the elephant in the room emigration policy, plus other factors have combined to make a perfect storm !

Unfortunately this won't end well for renters or small landlords.

Government in a bind of their own making.

Only way out is to build more social housing not exactly a quick fix.

Don't see many BTL mortgages being sold anytime soon.

Bit of a mess Unfortunately don't think they can legislate their way out.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744621#Comment_119744621

Yes, may as well vote Sinn Fein at this point, things can only get better :D

Rustyman101

Fair play if you think that's the answer!

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742638#Comment_119742638

I don't know. I didn't bring it up. Was it not yourself that brought it up complaining about being restricted to 2% increases when CPI was X%.

As regards professional businesses, well they just manage with such increases. Like professionals........... No professional business thinks that there should be an automatic bailout if their costs go up a bit. They can cope by becoming more efficient or getting greater economies of scale.

SwimClub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119744902#Comment_119744902

No, that wasn't me I haven't complained about a 2% cap, just about restriction of right to sell property instead of engaging with landlords.