How many landlords have quit because of rent controls?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
Again, you’re oscillating wildly between different points.

First it was “working people”; then it was people on the minimum wage; now you’re back to people on “low or middle incomes”.

Which is it?
Working people, people on minimum wage, people on low and middle incomes....are all working people!

And do people have some sort of entitlement to live and work in the same suburb?
You are deliberately dodging the issue.

There is no entitlement to live and work in the same suburb. But there is a reasonable expectation that if you work, it will afford you the opportunity to find suitable accommodation at an affordable price.
Currently that is not the case, as you will be aware from reading about the house subdivided into 11 apartments for extortionate rents.

This is a both a market and policy failure.
 

RETIRED2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
771
In my view of the world people don't have many entitlements.

Nevertheless a society needs people at all levels to function. And those people need somewhere to live and educational opportunities for their children.

Until recently this was not an issue in Ireland, (for the most part it still isn't outside Dublin). When I was a kid, cleaners and industrialists and everybody in between lived in close enough proximity to function as a whole. A teacher perhaps could not afford to live in the most desirable street, but they could live in the next street over.

This has changed because now there are enough people with more money than teachers to displace them, (and cleaners and shop workers) from entire districts. I agree with Gordon that if an individual wants to live in a certain area then they can make the choices that will result in earning enough to be able to afford that. Of course if they do they won't be teaching.

From societies point of view that leaves no teachers in Ranelagh, (as an example, I couldn't find Ranelagh on a map).

There are two reasons behind this, the rise of well paid jobs in sectors that did not exist a generation ago, pushing teachers etc. down the food chain. And what is charmingly called "assortive mating", people with high earning capacity marry people with high earning capacity, and of course vice versa. That leaves some families with two above average incomes and some with two, or one, below average.

I see no reason why society should intervene to fix this for the individual. If you cannot afford to live in Ranelagh, society should not displace someone else to give you that opportunity. And no matter how many new houses are built they will not all be in the most desirable areas.

However TBS has a point that no teachers in Ranelagh is a problem for society, not just for the people who want to work 22 hours a week 9 months a year and live in the most desirable part of town. (I know I should avoid a swipe at teachers, but it's hard).

I dont have any ready solution. I know that London was at this point 25 years ago, and has not really resolved it. I worked there is the 1990s and our company wanted to employ a specialist engineer. We finally found a guy in Manchester, he was delighted to work in the cutting edge area we specialised in, came to us for a month, then said sorry, but with a wife and 4 kids he had a 4 bed house and a large garden in Manchester, in London he could have afforded a 2 bed flat. We could have paid him 3 times the salary of the other engineers, but that is not the way the world works.
Very well said
The one thing about askaboutmoney is the elitest out of touch debate with the not so out of touch which is a good thing , the other good thing is there are more teachers than eletist out of touch which means the teachers vote count more ,
The elitest out of touch want the lower paid to pay more taxes and and spend the rest commuting to look after them if they had there way which they wont ,

The real looney left are people who look down on people on lower wages they think the are more important because they earn more . the out come and we are seeing it already beginning to happening people will begin to vote for the far
Right and far left to drain the elite infected swamp,

The message I am getting is one of resentment and spite anger/hostility/antagonism/animosity towards hard working people who aim to find a home close to where they work,
Maybe we should bulldoze down the schools and build houses on the site and let the kids travel out;) to where the teachers live,



The dog in the manger comes to mind,
 
Last edited:

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
I dont have any ready solution. I know that London was at this point 25 years ago, and has not really resolved it. I worked there is the 1990s and our company wanted to employ a specialist engineer. We finally found a guy in Manchester, he was delighted to work in the cutting edge area we specialised in, came to us for a month, then said sorry, but with a wife and 4 kids he had a 4 bed house and a large garden in Manchester, in London he could have afforded a 2 bed flat. We could have paid him 3 times the salary of the other engineers, but that is not the way the world works.
I think there is something quite succinct in your comment above.

Firstly, you dont have the solution - which recognises that there is a problem.
Secondly, you recognise that London arrived at this point 25yrs ago ( I suggested 15yrs ago here).

I don't proclaim to have the solution either.

But in my opinion, I recognize some factors that I believe go to the heart of the issue.

1) The housing sector has by and large been left to the private investment market.

2) The State, and successive governments, have through their policy decisions, diluted or neglected their understanding/responsibility of what housing actually is and what it is for.

The result being, over the long-term, allowing housing to be treated as a commodity to buy and sell for profit.
Housing is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. It is a fundamental necessity for the functioning of a civil society.
So if the population has an increasing number of homeless, or if increasing numbers are in rent and mortgage arrears, then the prospect of social upheaval is increasing all the time - which is no good for anybody.
Irish history is littered with such examples of social upheaval from Land Wars, 1916, Dublin 1950's, Belfast, Derry which in no small part stemmed from the issue of housing.
But Ireland is not unique, England, Scotland, South Africa, Gaza and even the good 'ol USA.
(In fact, as a betting man, I would consider significant pockets of the US to be nothing short of a tinderbox.)

The State has shown itself in the past as being able to deliver housing for the population on a large scale.
It has shown itself to be inadequate in the management of that housing.

The private sector has shown itself as being able to deliver housing quickly and efficiently.
It has also shown itself to be inefficient and to a point, reckless - basically building anywhere it was permitted, for the ultimate purpose of profiteering and nothing else.

So the solution, if found, will emerge from policy, not free-markets alone or authoritarian State control alone.

A mixed economy I think they call it.
Both the State and free enterprise working together ie. society, or more commonly referred, democratic socialism.
 

cremeegg

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,885
1) The housing sector has by and large been left to the private investment market.
If you mean that the state has not built many houses in recent decades that is true. If you mean that the state has left the private sector to get on with it and not fiddled about with constantly changing regulations that is not true. (For a number of years recently it was impossible to build a house in accordance with building regulations, ventilation regs and insulation regs were in conflict.)

2) The State, and successive governments, have through their policy decisions, diluted or neglected their understanding/responsibility of what housing actually is and what it is for.

The result being, over the long-term, allowing housing to be treated as a commodity to buy and sell for profit.
Things that are bought and sold for profit are usually in greater supply than things that are supplied at state dictate.

Air travel to and from Ireland mushroomed when the state gave up its monopoly. Radio thrived when the state gave up its monopoly.


Housing is not a commodity and should not be treated as such. It is a fundamental necessity for the functioning of a civil society.


This is just pap, and not up to your usual standard. Food is a fundamental necessity, no-one suggests that it shouldn't retreated as a commodity.


So if the population has an increasing number of homeless, or if increasing numbers are in rent and mortgage arrears, then the prospect of social upheaval is increasing all the time - which is no good for anybody.
It hasn't happened in London.


The State has shown itself in the past as being able to deliver housing for the population on a large scale.
It has shown itself to be inadequate in the management of that housing.
In the past. Now many councils have rent arrears in excess of 30%. They cannot manage the housing stock they have much less build and manage new housing on a scale.

The state cannot roll out rural broadband, which is childs play. Just string a few wires along pre-existing poles. How could it build a major housing program.
 

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
. If you mean that the state has left the private sector to get on with it and not fiddled about with constantly changing regulations that is not true
I agree, there is a mismatch between State interference and free trade enterprise.


Things that are bought and sold for profit are usually in greater supply than things that are supplied at state dictate.

Air travel to and from Ireland mushroomed when the state gave up its monopoly. Radio thrived when the state gave up its monopoly.
With respect, this is typical of the mindset that devalues housing as a commodity or a convenience.
To put it simply, without the existence of housing there never would have been either aeroplane or radio.
Homeless, dysfunctional, primitive societies dont have a great track record in progressive inventions.

Settled, housed societies do.

It hasn't happened in London.
I never said it has. I said the prospect of social upheaval increases.

In the past. Now many councils have rent arrears in excess of 30%. They cannot manage the housing stock they have much less build and manage new housing on a scale.
I agree, that is what I said. The State has shown itself as being inadequate to manage housing.

The state cannot roll out rural broadband, which is childs play. Just string a few wires along pre-existing poles. How could it build a major housing program.
Ok, that is moving to other areas which are debatable. As I understand private sector companies are withdrawing from tender because they cannot deliver the service.

But in any case, broadband et al, is insignificant relative to housing.
To compare, how long has housing been in existence, and were there protests back then about broadband?

The point being, to reinforce - housing is critical to society. Second only to oxygen and food?
 

The Horseman

Frequent Poster
Messages
268
I agree, there is a mismatch between State interference and free trade enterprise.




With respect, this is typical of the mindset that devalues housing as a commodity or a convenience.
To put it simply, without the existence of housing there never would have been either aeroplane or radio.
Homeless, dysfunctional, primitive societies dont have a great track record in progressive inventions.

Settled, housed societies do.



I never said it has. I said the prospect of social upheaval increases.



I agree, that is what I said. The State has shown itself as being inadequate to manage housing.



Ok, that is moving to other areas which are debatable. As I understand private sector companies are withdrawing from tender because they cannot deliver the service.

But in any case, broadband et al, is insignificant relative to housing.
To compare, how long has housing been in existence, and were there protests back then about broadband?

The point being, to reinforce - housing is critical to society. Second only to oxygen and food?

So what do you suggest. The State is unable to manage its stock of housing and to collect rent payable on same. You don't want the private market to supply housing as its unaffordable, so exactly what do you suggest?
 

RETIRED2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
771
So what do you suggest. The State is unable to manage its stock of housing and to collect rent payable on same. You don't want the private market to supply housing as its unaffordable, so exactly what do you suggest?
There are lots of states in the EU who have no problem managing its housing stock and collecting rents on same,

The Minister is now asking the same people to help solve the housing problem in there area who are not able to collect rents on the houses they already own ,
 
Last edited:

The Horseman

Frequent Poster
Messages
268
There are lots of states in the EU who have no problem managing its housing stock and collecting rents on same,

The Minister is now asking the same people to help solve the housing problem in there area who are not able to collect rents on the houses they already own ,

You still did not answer the question.
 

RETIRED2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
771
You still did not answer the question.
Sorry the old system and the people ran them need to be got rid of

Replaced by a system like the old land commission there was no problem collecting the annuity land/house increases in value it could be sold on with the annuity still payable until paid off in full to the state,

Have you looked at how the land commission worked there seamed to be no problem collecting rent ,

It is just a suggestion of a system that work ran by the state in lots of cases houses were built along with the land ,

banks did not have a problem giving out loans when the were sold on later with the annuity still outstanding on the property

if you had two holdings side by side selling at the same time the one with the annuity would sell for less than the one with no annuity,

I think a system like it could work for hard working people on lower wages who would and should be able to live near where they work and are priced out because of there wage bracket who always pay there way,
 
Last edited:

T McGibney

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,555
Sorry the old system and the people ran them need to be got rid of

Replaced by a system like the old land commission there was no problem collecting the annuity land/house increases in value it could be sold on with the annuity still payable until paid off in full to the state,

Have you looked at how the land commission worked there seamed to be no problem collecting rent ,
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.
 

RETIRED2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
771
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.
If you check the land commission system is older than the state check and correct yourself,
The point I am making is the annuity type system would work and did work where the Government bought up land on the free market in the 1960/1970/1980 and used the annuity to give it to people who would and could make the repayments on houses and land the otherwise could not afford,
 
Last edited:

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
So what do you suggest. The State is unable to manage its stock of housing and to collect rent payable on same. You don't want the private market to supply housing as its unaffordable, so exactly what do you suggest?
I never said I don't want the private market to supply housing.
However, the private sector in itself is insufficient to deliver housing stock - overbuilding when there is profit, underbuilding when margins are tight.

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.

@RETIRED2017 has also provided a suggestion offering an alternative way to provide and operate the housing stock.

And that is fundamentally the point - alternative systems and policies that deliver housing stock for the population that doesn't fall into disrepair, ghettos, slums, or becomes too expensive and out of reach for working people.
 

T McGibney

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,555
However, the private sector in itself is insufficient to deliver housing stock - overbuilding when there is profit, underbuilding when margins are tight.
.
That's precisely why we have building and zoning regulations and a system of planning permission. Which the State can tighten to restrict overbuilding and loosen to correct underbuilding. Unfortunately our betters have forgotten the latter.
 

RETIRED2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
771
I'll gladly correct myself if and when you prove me wrong. You haven't done that.
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.
I suggested looking at the system used by the land commission as a system that worked ,

I am looking for a system where people who have skill sets and do work which are required in every community can afford to live where they work ,

You will find some posters on hear who will say why don't they all up skill I know by your posting on hear you live in the real world and you know if all the teachers up skilled can we do without teachers,
If all the nurses up skill can we do without nurses,

IN the real world things are a bit different ,

We see it already with nursing if we don't start putting a system in place where they can live within working distance of there work place they will leave,

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

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
That's precisely why we have building and zoning regulations and a system of planning permission. Which the State can tighten to restrict overbuilding and loosen to correct underbuilding. Unfortunately our betters have forgotten the latter.
I would suggest that the last time regulations were loosened to correct underbuilding that it didn't end up too well.
That said, you raise an important point. Housing by its nature is immobile and long-term. Demand for housing however is fluid and mobile, making planning a complex business.
 

RETIRED2017

Frequent Poster
Messages
771
That's precisely why we have building and zoning regulations and a system of planning permission. Which the State can tighten to restrict overbuilding and loosen to correct underbuilding. Unfortunately our betters have forgotten the latter.
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,
 
Last edited:

T McGibney

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,555
I would suggest that the last time regulations were loosened to correct underbuilding that it didn't end up too well.
When was that? Worked grand in 1997/98. It took almost a full decade of political and official dereliction after that for the wheels to fall off the wagon, during which time the architect of the 1997/98 miracle Charlie McCreevy was banished to Brussels for refusing to adhere to socialism.
 

T McGibney

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,555
I suggested looking at the system used by the land commission as a system that worked
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.
 
Last edited:

T McGibney

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,555
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,
How does that work, price controls? :rolleyes:

The socialism is strong today.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top