How many landlords have quit because of rent controls?

[T McGibney]

I have already suggested to you an alternative to current system in another thread.
One where the State delivers the housing stock of affordable priced homes and where property management tender to provide quality accommodation at competitive prices - providing tenants and prospective owners a real option between rental v ownership.

How much would this cost? Again, 100,000 homes built at €250k each would cost €25 billion - which the State doesn't have - and only knock a dent in the housing shortage.

 

[T McGibney]

The only reason I used the land commission is the annunity system they used worked where the land commission built houses ,

How many houses did the Land Commission ever build? When did they last build one? How do the economics of Victorian housebuilding compare to those of today? You might as well be calling for the return to Brian Boru or the Tuatha Dé Danann to build houses.

 

[The Horseman]

A system like the old land commission for housing would get over the under building problem and take the problem away from the local vested interests for good,

Planning for new housing should reflect the wages paid for work and the people who do this work in each local area first,

So if the cost of housing is set to reflect the wages in the area then who pays for the amenities around these areas. Currently areas command a premium for access to good public infrastructure, access to good schools, hospitals etc.

How do you decide what the wage rate in the area is, if a Google or Facebook organization set up in the area do you review wage levels in comparison to affordability?

Who is going to pay to provide these services if property is set at wages people can afford, assuming these people will be on the average industrial wage how will they fund these services, and if they can't fund them then who will?

We as a society are all well and good saying we should do this and we should do that but once it actually impacts on the individual then people object. NIMBYISM is alive and well.

The Irish approach is if you don't pay your rent/Mortgage you face no consequences, perhaps look at other countries and see how they deal with these issues. In Ireland we just think "ah sure it'll be grand".

 

[RETIRED2017]

Except the Land Commission didn't work. It robbed land off widows whose husbands had died on the grounds that they wouldn't be able to "farm properly" Their children ended up destitute as the derisory compensation they received was gobbled up by inflation. The Land Commission handed this land to political lackeys and hangers-on. Political corruption at its worst.

Leaving the poilitical lackys and hanger on to one side for now, My views on the political system operated by FF?FG and Labour seeing close up is rotten to the core this is the reason I use the FF?FG, and FG?FF all the time,

In the neck of the woods I come from if you wanted to change FF? and you voted FG you actually got FG?FF and if you then wanted to put FG out and Voted FF You got FF?FG the same lackeys and hangers on were looked after no matter which party you voter for same circle I scratch your back and you scratch mine ,

Labour through local union reps In the public service and local government and Health Boards did exactly the same thing all looked after the same circle while getting voted in by dye in the wool supporters who could not see they were getting shafted all the time so the inner circle of hangers could be looked after,

Can we leave the inner circle and the lackies to one side which by the way was horrible FF/FG/ labour need to offer a regretful acknoledgment to the people of Ireland and there former dye in the wool supporters for the harm they did,

take a look at the annuty system used before the foundation of this state set up by the British the people who brought it in were far from socialist in there out look and see did a system work already in Ireland which was set up to solve problems close to the housing problem of today,

We could also look and see if the same system had being used for housing in the past set up and ran away from the kind of people I posted about above along the same lines as the land commission
only looking at the positive parts like the people from day one knew if the made the repayments the could add value they would retain this value and protect the state interest along with increasing there own interest the state did not require to spend any more money on the property ever again ,

 

[T McGibney]

Take a look at the annuty system used before the foundation of this state set up by the British the people who brought it in were far from socialist in there out look and see did a system work already in Ireland which was set up to solve problems close to the housing problem of today,

Ok, tells us how it worked and how it differed from the public housing schemes of the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

The problem as I see it with all those schemes relative to today is that the economics of the old days no longer apply. Back in the day, a council or public authority could build a house for half nothing because of the availability of labour at rates so cheap that they approximated to slave labour.

Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the first task in building a house was to have the labourers make the blocks. This meant that, as the other inputs didn't cost a whole pile, the overall build cost was tiny.

Today, new build houses and apartments are extremely expensive and the only way to finance this is to charge rents that by the standards of the old days are eye-watering.

The solutions of the 1900s or 1940s are not the solutions we need now.

 

[TheBigShort]

How much would this cost? Again, 100,000 homes built at €250k each would cost €25 billion - which the State doesn't have - and only knock a dent in the housing shortage.

The ESRI predicts that we will need to build 30,-35,000 houses a year over next decade.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...e-prices-does-not-signal-new-bubble-1.3128452

It doesn't say that they all have to be built by the State.
Nevertheless, even if the State buit 30,000 houses, by your figures that reduces to €7.5bn pa.
Furthermore, your €250,000 figure is debatable given the ownership of land by the State in the first place.
Nevertheless, an injection of a €7.5bn building programme, or even half that could overheat the economy.
Its not so much that the State 'cannot afford' it - most of it will return to the State in income tax on wages, VAT, CT etc. It is more of a case of the State not having the capacity to deliver such a large amount of housing without overheating the construction sector once again.

So the State should measure its capacity to deliver housing, and then the type of housing it wants to deliver - typically 2/3 bed townhouses and apartments.

Once it begins delivery of housing it should tender to property management for the maintenance of quality accommodation based on most competitive rental prices - competition (who can offer the cheapest rents).
The State will receive a steady income stream, off-setting over a long period of time, the build cost.
Laws to be strengthened for property managers whose tenants are engaged in anti-social, criminal, property destruction and refusal to pay rent.
Laws to be strengthened against property management who fail to provide the minimum standard of accommodation and associated services as outlined in their tender submission.
The State will insure for structural defects that occur over lifetime of property.
The State will insure the property management for non-payment of rent where the tenant is shown to be in financial difficulties and unable to pay (as distinct from refusing to pay).

 

[T McGibney]

The ESRI predicts that we will need to build 30,-35,000 houses a year over next decade.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business...e-prices-does-not-signal-new-bubble-1.3128452

A build rate of 35,000 houses per annum would mean the current shortage will drag on for another 10 years at least.

Furthermore, your €250,000 figure is debatable given the ownership of land by the State in the first place.

Yes it's indeed debatable. The real figure would probably be higher, because as you say....

Nevertheless, an injection of a €7.5bn building programme, or even half that could overheat the economy.

So the State should measure its capacity to deliver housing, and then the type of housing it wants to deliver - typically 2/3 bed townhouses and apartments.
....
The State will receive a steady income stream, off-setting over a long period of time, the build cost.
....
The State will insure the property management for non-payment of rent where the tenant is shown to be in financial difficulties and unable to pay.

Quite the contradiction there.

You've mentioned before about how State housing would pay for itself over 100 years but you've so far failed to address my key point that the cost of financing a €250k house or apartment (or even a €150k house or apartment) over such a long timeframe is economically ruinous owning to the long term cumulative cost of capital and the necessity for heavy expenditure on maintenance costs, especially after the first decade or two.

 

[RETIRED2017]

Ok, tells us how it worked and how it differed from the public housing schemes of the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

The problem as I see it with all those schemes relative to today is that the economics of the old days no longer apply. Back in the day, a council or public authority could build a house for half nothing because of the availability of labour at rates so cheap that they approximated to slave labour.

Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the first task in building a house was to have the labourers build the blocks. This meant that, as the other inputs didn't cost a whole pile, the overall build cost was tiny.

Today, new build houses and apartments are extremely expensive and the only way to finance this is to charge rents that by the standards of the old days are eye-watering.

The solutions of the 1900s or 1940s are not the solutions we need now.

To give you an example i know a house which the council bought to be honest I know the people who sold it to them the council spent over 200000 euro before turning it over to the tenant 18 months after the buying it, I would say if we had dare I say the word a land commission type annuity system I suspect the tenants would be a lot happier to take the house as it was and upgrade it them self over time provided the retained the value added I would say if the spent 20% over time of what the council spent the would be happier with the results and would regard it as there real home,

 

[T McGibney]

To give you an example i know a house which the council bought to be honest I know the people who sold it to them the council spent over 200000 euro before turning it over to the tenant I would say if we had an dare I say the word a land commission type annuity system I suspect the tenants would be a lot happier to take the house as it was and upgrade it them self over time provided the retained the value added I would say if the spent 20% over time of what the council spent the would be happier with the results and would regard as there real home,

Ah come on, I know you mean well but you must realise that in these days of litigation and health and safety, the era of councils putting people into unfinished or inadequately fitted out homes is long gone.

As for the idea of tenants committing money into upgrading homes to which they have no lawful title.

 

[PaxmanK]

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, What happened to this thread.

 

[RETIRED2017]

[ (Tom Said )come on, I know you mean well but you must realise that in these days of litigation and health and safety, the era of councils putting people into unfinished or inadequately fitted out homes is long gone.
Under dare I say The land commission system they would own the home once they agreed to buy the annutey ,same as someone buying it privately and buying a mortgage from a bank,

(Tom Said )As for the idea of tenants committing money into upgrading homes to which they have no lawful title.
That is the point under dare I say the land commission system they do have title same as buying a mortgage and they can upgrade if an when the like,[/QUOTE]

 

[T McGibney]

That fails to address my point. Councils and public bodies can no longer afford to put people into unfinished or inadequately fitted out homes for fear of compo claims.

What you're proposing is a massive subsidy to tenants and eventual owners that would, if replicated on a mass scale, bankrupt the public purse.

See my point above about the availability of virtual slave labour up to the 1960s, against the high costs applicable now.

 

[TheBigShort]

Quite the contradiction there.

How so?
The houses will be occupied primarily by working people at affordable rental prices. If a tenant has the ability to pay but refuses there will consequences for them (typically fines that are a multiple of the rent due plus legal costs).

You've mentioned before about how State housing would pay for itself over 100 years but you've so far failed to address my key point that the cost of financing a €250k house or apartment (or even a €150k house or apartment) over such a long timeframe is economically ruinous owning to the long term cumulative cost of capital and the necessity for heavy expenditure on maintenance costs, especially after the first decade or two.

I don't see how. Houses built by the State in 1950-1960's cost about equivalent €5-€10000.
A local authority tenant, average annual rent paid is circa €3,000 pa today.

As for maintenance, the maintenance will be managed by the property management company, fixtures and fittings, furnishings, service lifts, etc.
Structural defects to be insured by the State.
If the properties are build to standard I fail to see what structural defects will occur after 10 or 20yrs that will bankrupt the country.

 

[RETIRED2017]

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately, What happened to this thread.

Back to post no 24
I suspect it is not going to get any better tax wise ,

Nothing is going to change while public housing is ran the way it is at present where a tenant can get away with not paying or not looking after there rentals unless and until this changes there can be no change in the private rental sector You will need to have a rainy day fund built up ether from the rentals or from another source if you want to stay in the housing rental market ,

From where I stand we need to come up with a system where all money spent on public funded housing will result in all agreed repayments being made in full this will then feed into the private sector ,


Someone Who has a interest in the rent comtrol zone should be asking the question when is the rent controls up ,Under private property law I think they have a time limit on them,

 

[T McGibney]

How so?
The houses will be occupied primarily by working people at affordable rental prices. If a tenant has the ability to pay but refuses there will consequences for them (typically fines that are a multiple of the rent due plus legal costs).

And??? Any landlord knows that having to resort to legals to collect rent is an out-and-out disaster. @RETIRED2017 also mentioned accommodating a cohort that can't afford to pay, but didn't explain how this stacks up with the claimed "steady income stream." Hence my comment.

I don't see how. Houses built by the State in 1950-1960's cost about equivalent €5-€10000.
A local authority tenant, average annual rent paid is circa €3,000 pa today.

If this were true, and/or as significant as you suggest, public housing should be a goldmine for the State. But it's not, instead it's a money pit. Doesn't that suggest something?


And for the same economics to apply to homes built now, tenants in 50-60 years time will have to pay €150,000 pa. How likely is that.

As for maintenance, the maintenance will be managed by the property management company, fixtures and fittings, furnishings, service lifts, etc.

Who will pay the property management company's bills?

Structural defects to be insured by the State.

There is a lot more to property maintenance than remedying structural defects

 

[Firefly]

It would seem perverse,to a non landlord,that with rents at the highest level ever achieved since the foundation of the state,that you are leaving this business.
If it was profitable when you started the investment(and surely it was) then it must be super profitable now.

This is what I am thinking too.

Rents have never been higher..
Demand has never been greater..
Interest rates have never been lower..

It seems to be teed up for landlords. So why are so many leaving the market & turning to Airbnb?

Given the horror stories I keep hearing regarding tenants not paying rent and the rigmarole involved in removing them, I suspect that the pendulum has swung too far in the tenant's favour.

By all means, tenants should be protected, however as with renting any other type of asset, anyone not paying rent should lose their entitlement to use the asset (be evicted) and anyone wrecking a place should be easily prosecuted.

 

[RETIRED2017]

This is what I am thinking too.

Rents have never been higher..
Demand has never been greater..
Interest rates have never been lower..

It seems to be teed up for landlords. So why are so many leaving the market & turning to Airbnb?

Given the horror stories I keep hearing regarding tenants not paying rent and the rigmarole involved in removing them, I suspect that the pendulum has swung too far in the tenant's favour.

By all means, tenants should be protected, however as with renting any other type of asset, anyone not paying rent should lose their entitlement to use the asset (be evicted) and anyone wrecking a place should be easily prosecuted.

I think the underlying problem is Landlords are paying USC and PRSI which they have not being paying in the past I think the level of tax is also a big factor,
When rents go higher tenants expect a better service ,
The rent controls means Landlords upped the rent in case it came to there area next
tenants who looked after there rentals as if it was there own and were under paying got hit with the full market value because property price become linked to the amount of rent you were getting,
There was a change in the Law landlord needed to give more notice ,

Some working people who were using being a landlord as a pension fund would have got the same returns in a pension fund without all the problemsl of being a landlord

 

[RETIRED2017]

It was Coveney who introduced the rent cap with the backing of cabinet and FF.
Murphy is completely out of his depth and should never have been given that portfolio by Varadkar.
This is a collective failure of FG & FF.

FF wanted 2%, not 4% cap on increases:
http://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-crisis-4-rents-3138632-Dec2016/

Just in case anyone thinks the main alternative would be any better!

FF?FG for all of my life Were the same party ,the only people who think they are not are there Dye in the wool supporters to refer to FF? as an alternative to FG is an insult hopefully by the next election FF dye in the wool supporters will have copped on and will vote for the FG faction who have provided us with a Government over the last few years while FF party became like the DUP SF up north who have the numbers to govern but chose not to do so for party reasons,

 

[Gordon Gekko]

It would help things massively if a landlord could charge market rent in respect of a new tenancy and of a new owner could charge market rent.

The present system is mad in that regard.

 

[cremeegg]

The Land Commission. Bless. One of the biggest rackets in the history of the State where private property was forcibly confiscated from its lawful owners and reappropriated to lackeys of the ruling political parties.

Thankfully no modern Supreme Court would for an instant tolerate its abuse of process and contempt for private property rights.

Always thought that was a major lacuna in my knowledge of Irish history, do you know of any book on the Land Commission