How many landlords have quit because of rent controls?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firstly, well done on putting forward a proposal. Your solution was posted on another thread before and I thought it was a very good idea.

Yes, and I never claimed it was a panacea to the housing crisis. All it does is provide an alternative rental option targeting those who work but cannot afford rent or to buy or are currently drowning in rents and mortgages.

I also said that if there was a fundamental reason it couldn't be done then in the bin it goes.
You have listed a number of reasonable points as to why it wouldn't work, however, that does not mean solutions to the issues you raise cannot be found.
So at least you have gone someway considerably further than "harebrained" as a reason not to think it would be a useful idea.

So I will respond accordingly to each of your points later.
 
"How many landlords have quit because of rent controls? "

Can we call it a day on this?

There is anecdotal evidence of landlords leaving, plenty of "thinking of", "threatening to" leave, but little or nothing in hard facts.
Certainly, if no-one has produced some figures by now my guess is the answer is somewhere between zero and a lot less than some are making it out to be.
 
You can end this nonsense now by answering a simple question.
How much return, at a minimum, on an average annual outlay of €4,000 would it take to make it worthwhile for you to provide a level of accommodation for a tenant that you currently provide in your capacity as a landlord?

A question isn't simple, just because you say its simple. The only way to answer that question is to ask a whole bunch of questions about the stuff you've left out.

The Cheapest option is to rent a place then sublet it. See if you can do that for 4k legally. Start from there.
 
Which is why, due to the failure of the market to deal with the social problems that you have highlighted, the State should use the tax system plus its own landbanks to secure land and engage the services of a provider with scale like Cairn Homes to build the homes that are needed right now. Where does the money come from? Borrow it at what are probably never to be repeated low rates.

Couldn't agree more Gekko.
However I would have thought that politically providing social housing on such a scale would be a no-go?
Images of large scale ghettos emerging with the great and good complainig about why somebody on low income gets a house on the cheap while others have to pay private market rates?
Thats why I went down the road of property management. It is to target hard-working people whose incomes are too high for social assistance but too low to pay rent and/or save a deposit for a house.
So instead of borrowing solely to support those on the lowest of incomes, the squeezed middle gets some relief from extortionate rents and house prices that saddle massive mortgages around their necks.
The property management scheme could be targeted at housing to be built in RPZ's and not every town and village in the country.
 
There is anecdotal evidence of landlords leaving, plenty of "thinking of", "threatening to" leave, but little or nothing in hard facts.
Certainly, if no-one has produced some figures by now my guess is the answer is somewhere between zero and a lot less than some are making it out to be.


...There were 212,306 landlords [broken link removed] in 2012, which did [broken link removed] 179,026 in 2013, and [broken link removed] 160,160 in 2014. But since then, the number has been climbing again.
There were 170,282 landlords [broken link removed] the RTB in 2015, which rose to 175,250 in 2016, and again to 176,251 by the end of September 2017....

Sounds like down by 52,000 but increased by 16,000.

Consider population. (2010) 4,626,928 ~ (2018) 4,803,748
 
A question isn't simple, just because you say its simple. The only way to answer that question is to ask a whole bunch of questions about the stuff you've left out.

Questions about the stuff that ive left out, but questions that you have left out too?

I don't proclaim to dot every i or cross every t on the pages of AAM. This is merely a concept. If there is a fundamental reason why it cant be done I would be happy to hear it.

The Cheapest option is to rent a place then sublet it. See if you can do that for 4k legally. Start from there.

I wouldn't be able to do that but the State could.
Here is a similar concept applied in Singapore which purportedly has one of the lowest homeless rates in the world. Some 80% + of the population are housed in this way.
Im not advocating we adopt entirely the Singapore model with its large tower blocks, but elements of their policy we could.
It offers 99yr old leaseholds on properties built and developed by the State.
( I suggested 100yrs earlier, silly me to push the boat out!)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
 
TBS, why don't you start a new thread around your proposal for a new model of social housing. You are derailing this thread about Landlords quitting and rent controls.
 
TBS, why don't you start a new thread around your proposal for a new model of social housing. You are derailing this thread about Landlords quitting and rent controls.

Thanks cremeegg, I disagree that I have derailed the thread but point accepted, my proposal should be in another thread.
 
Thanks cremeegg, I disagree that I have derailed the thread but point accepted, my proposal should be in another thread.

This could have been a really useful thread but the last 10 or so pages have been torture. Nobody will bother reading it now.
Detailed and killed stone dead I would say.
 
This could have been a really useful thread but the last 10 or so pages have been torture. Nobody will bother reading it now.
Detailed and killed stone dead I would say.

I agree. I thought my concept was relatively straightforward and simple to understand, certainly the last time I raised it in another thread that was case (no more than 1 page).
My fault for entertaining posters who couldn't grasp basic detail.

Nevertheless, @AlbacoreA has produced figures indicating more landlords have actually entered the sector since rent controls were introduced rather than leave.
Kind of kills the thread anyway.
 
And still he continues.
Any chance the relevant posts can be set off into a thread that is about the topic and only the topic in the op?
Would be very useful for future reference and nothing the effect of continuing property market interference.
It's of no use to anybody the mess it's in now that.
 
At all stages of this discussion, I have criticised your idea, in line with the posting guidelines.

I have not sought at any stage to impugn or criticise you.

Asking me if I can read. That is not personal jibe? Implying that my views are absent of conmon sense. That is not personal? Ordering me to 'go off and study basics....' is not an attempt to try and demean my intelligence?

Im quite happy to accept fundamental reasons as to why my ideas or suggestions wont or cannot work, but simply labelling them as 'harebrained' is not a sound reason, and yes it acts as a personal jibe.

From the outset I stated my idea was a concept. From the outset I stated that there would be thousands of ifs and buts and I suggested that it would be impossible to detail all within the pages of AAM.

There are, as I see it, 4 layers of accommodation in the State.
1) LA housing for people, for one reason or another, are unable or incapable of ever supporting themselves.
2) Social and affordable housing for people who work but whose incomes are too low to afford private rents or ownership.
3) Private rental sector, for people whose incomes are too high for social supports and for people who choose not to buy.
4) Private sector ownership.

Its 3) im interested in finding solutions. Not for those who are comfortable with their arrangements, but those who go to work, pay the rent, pay the bills and have little left over. They cant save, they are continuously being pushed further out from where they work, they are delaying families, they receive no social supports etc
Figures of €10bn, 100,000 houses have been bandied about. So to advance the idea further, it would be a scheme only operable in certain designated areas. Lucky for me the DofHousing has already identified RPZ's.

Along with the State building program of LA and Social and affordable housing for people with incomes that fall below certain thresholds, the State could embark on house building in RPZ's for people whose incomes exceed certain thresholds.
The State takes on the cost of capital, as it already does for LA and Social housing.
However it then outsources the management of these properties to the private sector.

This is where you, Bronte, Gekko et all come in. Given your experience of managing properties as landlords, the State will offer you (or anybody else who is interested and who can meet the terms of the tender) the opportunity to manage a property, for profit, but without the cost of taking on a mortgage. The property manager (PM) will be the one who offers to let the property for the lowest rent.

Some conditions for prospective tenants.
1) The must have a verifiable track record of paying rent in private sector for 12 months or more.
2) The are not, or have not been receiving State supports for that accommodation eg HAP

The prospective tenants with the highest income/rent ratio will be prioritized as prospective tenants.
PM's can refuse a tenancy but must have bona fide reasons for doing so - in general, we are talking about working people who pay rent, who now have an opportunity to significantly reduce that rent - all good indicators for a good relationship?

The cost to the State.

This will be minimal long-term. As demonstrated in Singapore, the State offers 99yr lease holds to prospective tenants.

If we take simply one €250,000 as an example.
The State borrows €250,000 over 10,20 or 30yrs to pay for the build of the unit. The State receives €2,500 a year back each year. The State then simply rolls over the remaining portion of debt when repayment is due, spreading the debt over 100yrs. Something a private landlord with a 30ur mortgage cannot do.

On the flipside. Each year economic activity to the value of €7,200 (State fee to PM, profit, fixtures fittings, furnishings etc) is generated.
In 34yrs, all things remaining equal, the €250,000 capital cost to the State will have generated €250,000 of economic activity.

All that has occurred is that the State has taken the capital cost of a mortgage out of the equation. In return, it retains ownership of the property.
The landlord, or rather PM, competes for profits in the private rental sector but on the basis of offering competitive rents. All in market that is high demand.
Tenants, who work, who contribute to the economy, avail of a real alternative to the current private rental sector and private ownership sector.

Tell me where I am going wrong.
 
Asking me if I can read. That is not personal jibe? Implying that my views are absent of conmon sense. That is not personal? Ordering me to 'go off and study basics....' is not an attempt to try and demean my intelligence?

Im quite happy to accept fundamental reasons as to why my ideas or suggestions wont or cannot work, but simply labelling them as 'harebrained' is not a sound reason, and yes it acts as a personal jibe.

It might appear to you as such but it, crucially, isn't one. And if you want to quote me in this context, please do so in full sentences not random parts of phrases selected to mislead. (For example I asked "Can't you read?" as I had twice answered a question you claimed I was evading, and provided a link to my most recent answer. That's not, by any stretch, a personal attack on you.)

Again
Attack an opinion by all means, but please don't attack the person expressing the opinion.

Your plan is still crazy. That's no reflection on you.

End of.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top