The eviction ban

...dont worry, sf are gonna seriously struggle in government, and ffg are also following largely academic based ideologies in regards our approach to housing, and of course, its working out well!

because it's more fking lucrative...use your head for once ffs.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/04/03/landlord-advertising-apartments-on-airbnb-after-he-evicted-tenants-and-said-he-was-selling-up/

I know it's in the media's interest to find the worst sob stories but the people they choose often don't do their argument any favours. Many of them come across as both having their head completely in the sand as well as being absolutely helpless.

There's nothing wrong with treating the place you rent as your home. We've just normalized the situation to such an extent that it now seems odd. But the place you rent is your home just as much as if you have a mortgage.

It is because of the price of houses. landlords wouldn't be leaving the market if they weren't making money doing do.

At the end of the day these people are making a financial decision. they bought the houses as investments, not out of charity. Or they inherited a house and rented it out so they would have an asset and make money out of it.

House prices rose to a place where they decided that it made more sense to take the payout and leave the market. They are more interested in the short term profit than treating a house as a long term investment.

As for the ones renting out as AirBNB, they're staying in the rental market but decided that they could make more money. The going rates for AirBNB is ridiculously high. Especially since hotels are charging so much. During covid there were a load of AirBNB's that were suddenly being let as regular tenancies. That's because when the market changed, the landlords changed their target consumers.

And fair enough, people are allowed to make those sort of financial decisions. But the housing and rental markets are so screwed up that landlords felt they could make more money in a short time and when they start leaving it just makes it worse and worse.

Housing was generally thought of as a long term thing. people buy a house and get a 30 year mortgage. When it came to casual landlords, they would see it as a longer term investment too. Rent a house for 30 years and have a nest egg for retirement. But wildly increasing prices have turned the housing market into something where substantial short term gains can be made.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again - I got out because the risk/reward balance tipped way to far on the risk side.

Risk to my property, risk to my income, risk to my investment.

I would have happily continued on renting into the future, but when the opportunity came to sell I ran for my life.

I didn't make a fortune, especially when balanced against losses I made over many of the years I was renting. But even had I faced a loss I think I still would have got out - there are just too many limitations on what you can do, and not enough back-up if it goes wrong.

Tax breaks are only fiddling while Rome burns. There is no tax break that would have persuaded me not to sell. Only substantial changes to the conditions under which landlords operate might have done that - and then, as other posters have said, would you believe them even if they were promised?

That is perfectly fine. The market needs to shake out the people who don't have the ability to manage the risks involved. Diversifiable risk should not be compensated, and is not in any sort of efficient market.

Many small landlords don't want to rent long term, institutional ones do but they are coming into the market mostly via new builds at eye watering rents.

As the small landlords get out and sell to first time buyers they are replaced by institutional investors and rents go up, advertised rents in Dublin are going up 14% a year.

RPZ's cap at 2% actually drives small landlords out and makes rents more expensive.

We can plan what an ideal market looks like, but we need to start where we are now, and this process just seems insane right now.

I really don't think the ideal rental market consists of a monopoly of institutional investors BTW, regardless of how long they are willing to commit to charging crazy rent to people for.

They have created the conditions to make being a landlord impossible for the little guy. Thus driving all of the lower priced rentals out.

Now everyone has got what they have been asking for for years. The eviction ban before christmas was the neon writing to get out while you still can to the little guy.

Dont worry though the REITS have great conditions. They will line up to buy up any new stock. Only problem is to provide for the risk of changes to legislation in the future, or delinquent tenants, or not being allowed to put their rent up in future to cover expenses and god forbid, make a profit, they must charge a massive premium on the rent as insurance against even worse measures which are most likely to come.

Institutional investors will charge market rents but they gave investment horizons beyond any small landlords ie 30/40 years plus if you are managing the pension of someone in their 20s/30s. They also are bringing new accommodation to the market and are not locked into historic rents. The lack of supply drives rent prices regardless. While not perfect they are far better for someone who wants to rent in the medium to long term.

My point about fixed term rentals is not just 10 years it's also short term rentals ie 1/2 years as well.

The problem is currently tenants and landlords have tenancies that are simultaneously indefinite and lack any type of real security.

If a landlord rents they can only regain their property under very limited circumstances. Even those circumstances make it very hard to put the property back on the market. From a landlords perspective leases are more or less indefinite. That's before you factor in getting misbehaving tenants out etc. In periods where there is an oversupply of rental accommodation tenants can leave whenever they want again impacting their income.

However from a tenants perspective in the current market anyway they are at the mercy of a landlords investment decision and can effectively be asked to leave at any time if a landlords choose to sell. So while they have an indefinite lease it doesn't give any real security.

Before you even talk about eviction bans rent controls etc the current regulations don't work for either landlords or tenants. Unless supply matches demand more or less. If either exceed each other either tenants or landlords get screwed.

Anyone renting long term has to factor these issues in. We need modern rental regulations that gives security to both landlords and tenants. There is no political will to make the necessary changes.

Politically its just demonise landlords which both landlordsand tenants suffer. Without landlords you don't have a rental market

But for all that we still need more accommodation to truly sort the problem out.

Every business is allowed to write down business expenses before paying tax on profits.

In any business interest on borrowings is allowed against tax. I have bought land, tractors, cattle even cars, tools and equipment. If I borrow money I am allowed to deduct any interest paid as a business expense.

If I bought warehouses, a pub, a shop any interest on borrowings is a business expense. It was only at the end of the last crash the ln Labour party had a brain farm and disallowed interest in borrowing's in the rental sector as a total expense.

White goods and any other business related expenses are just that business expenses deducted before you pay tax.

The problem with the rental sector is the normal expenses were not allowed such as property tax, some maintenance was considered an improvement.

At the end of it all the tenant pays for it in higher rents as LL exit the market

There is competition everywhere, there is no such thing as 'less competition' in the Irish rental market at the moment.

The small landlords are leaving in their droves, 5,000 in Q3 issued notices to terminate followed by 4,500 in Q4 last year.

The competition is all going to be at the higher end of the market because those are the only units available on the rental market.

And that will include an awful lot of people who can't afford to be at the higher end.

There won't be less competition for small landlords because many are going to be ex small landlords that sold their property either to first time buyers or the local authority for HAP. The ones left will have plenty of demand.

I don't agree with your analysis. Anyone supplying units for rent is reducing competition among tenants for rental units generally. Yes, the institutional units tend to be at the higher end but the market is connected. Had they not provide those units, that number of tenants would now be competing among the less well off for a reduced number of units thus pushing prices up for everyone. Good for the small landlord but not good for tenants.

It isn't either/or. What you're doing is looking to run one type of accomodation out of town in favour of a monopoly of the other. This is what happened when they banned bedsits - I happen to know from personal experience that they provided a certain cohort with cheap but functional accomodation - but with their minimum sizes, double aspect and other mad rules (a lot of which the rowed back on a few years later) they just succeeded in pricing those people completely out of any rental market.

Institutional REIT-type landlords weren't in competition with me.

Mine was a purpose-built apartment, kept very nicely, and rented at a very reasonable rent (far too reasonable once the RPZ rules started tightening).

What you need is a variety of rentals to suit the variety of renters that are out there. What's happening now is the shutting down of one (other) whole section of the market.

Not everybody can afford the top-of-the-range REIT rentals.