Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

A loan for housing development uses far more of the banks capital that a loan to a couple on average wages. And therefore it may be a better use of capital not to lend to housing developments and hence the high rate to deter this type of lending. The capital the bank needs to hold for the loan is not dictated by the bank or the central bank but by the EU under CRDIV.

Ulster Bank and KBC have pulled out of the market because of the low interest rate environment because they can no longer turn a profit because there margins have reduced massively. This is not unique to Ireland and right across the EU there is a consolidation of banks for the exact same reason.

Revolut abandoning plans to base in Dublin has nothing to do with bad loans and comes down to permissions to operate a MiFID Investment Firm.

One of the main reasons in my opinion is the unwillingness to deal with non payment of mortgages & rents. All property loans are issued based on securing the loan on an asset. If you look at our property sector and the mentality of some not to pay mortgages rent and remain in the property for months and even years in some instances.

We need a functioning eviction process but nobody wants to admit it because its not a vote catcher.

Why do you think the State has gone away from directly providing housing and even closing the RAS scheme. Simple, they are liable for the non payment of rent and they know there is nothing they can really do about it.

So the State has decided to rely on the Approved Housing Bodies and the private sector. So with the private sector the private landlord takes all the risk and the State (specifically with the small landlord) gets over 50% of the rent back. Then if the tenant is a HAP tenant and they stop paying their part of the rent to HAP, then HAP stop paying the rent to the landlord completely.

The landlord then has to go to the RTB and it can take up to 2 yrs to actually get a tenant out. So the tenant has been housed for 2 yrs in this situation at no cost to the State. Then when the tenant is finally evicted lawfully they go to the State and are deemed in need of housing and the whole process starts again.

Whether you want to accept it we don't do responsibility.

The banks are making commercial decisions which is exactly what they should do.

You could probably solve land banking by bringing in a rezoning law such that land zoned residential, not being used for that purpose 2 years from the legislation date or future zoning change, revert to being designated agricultural with an 8 year moratorium on any futher rezoning applications attempting to revert the zoning. I think that would prove a greater incentive than taxation.

Because the State has a responsibility to house people and if you take money from any social welfare payments you remove the receiptents choice to spend their benefit how they see fit.

Then when they don't pay rent it takes months to garnish someone's social welfare payment. Depending on their benefit you may not get paid any of the outstanding rent because it would leave them with a welfare rate below what they are legally entitled to.

The system is rigged against the small landlord with the State and the tenant getting the majority of the benefits.

Fully agree they should have a use it or loose it policy. The only change I would add is to bring in a rezoning tax with government taking 60-70% of any profit generated from the land being rezoned. That way if they didn’t use it and it got rezoned back to agricultural and they thought they could sit on it and rezone in the future they will be hit by the tax.

It's not a vote catcher. Let the "evil" landlord suffer. The current parties in power are fearful those in the left are promising housing for all. This reminds me of the promises made by the politicians in the UK and Brexit. That's working out "well".

Politicians are promising everything and the public are falling for it exactly the same way the British voters who voted for Brexit did.

The sad part about all of this is its the tenants who are suffering because small landlords are leaving the market because of the toxic environment. I know a number of landlords who are getting out.

I am a landlord.

Agreed. The notion that a landowner can benefit from a massive capital gain simply by a decision of the state is bonkers & archaic thanks to our feudal land system. All of the ancillary costs of infrastructure supply to support proposed residential developments on rezoned land could be funded by these taxed profits, which could in turn drive down the costs of housing.

I think many people understand that politicians are the problem not the solution. This applies to both tennant and landlord.

What you see on media is those that make the most noise. You know what they say those.

And to echo what other posters have said there has been a concerted effort by government to demonise and eradicate the small landlord through taxation, regulation

The result has been that the sector has become monopolistic the same has happened in construction regulation and financing has made things difficult for the small builder and created barriers to entry for new business

Land is sold in large portfolios by state agencies again eliminating the small player from the business.

And the killer is the taxation system. Crucify the small player, while the large firms can escape without paying a cent.

This is a grim system for renters, buyers, small Irish business and even owners. Too few have so much power in an industry critical to the economy.

Politicians are not listening to the people, so it's time to give them a kicking. I don't think it people falling for false promises rather giving a kicking to those that have made their lives difficult

would people expect the majority of these plans to be given the go ahead? do many get shot down going the SHD route?

From what I've been reading roughly 10% go to judicial review

You make a bigger profit renting out 3 rooms in your home, than you do renting out three 1 bed properties.

😂😂😂

90k*3.5 plus at least a 10% deposit is higher than the median house price in several parts of Dublin.

I think you will find what the post is referring to. It is what those on the "left" are proposing. If those in the centre/right can't improve the situation by encouraging increase in stock with tax incentives etc then enforcing what you want which is what the "left" leaning parties plan on doing is not going to improve the situation.

The politicians are trying to please everyone and are pleasing no one. If those on the left think they can dictate an unfavourable environment in the property sector and not expect the stakeholders to react is either naive or stubborn.

....again, this is an over simplification, theres clearly something catastrophically failing in regards supply, and not just in the dublin region, and this has been occurring since the previous crash also