"Lifting the eviction ban was the right thing to do"

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,768

Gerard Howlin: Lifting the eviction ban was the right thing to do

It was not working and did nothing to address the deep dysfunction in housing policy
www.irishtimes.com
by Gerry Howlin

It’s odd listening to complaints about a lack of rental accommodation in an environment where private landlords are demonised. A rental market works on profit for the provider, and certainly on both sides it is a good thing that tenants’ rights are improved, and it is a pity they are not better enforced. Sinn Féin, the main opposition party, wants a rent freeze for three years. Approximately 40 per cent of property sales in the final three months of last year involved landlords selling their investment properties. The landlords are being liquidated; hurrah! This is politics first, not policy.

...

The lesson of the abandonment of housing policy in the crash is the stupidity of pro-cyclical policies. When costs were down, we did nothing. Now they are up and we can’t build enough at any price. What is singularly lacking is expertise and capacity in Government, in An Bord Pleanála and local authorities. We spend billions in an unreformed system that lacks planners and is a byword for gaping inefficiency. It frequently takes up to six years to build an apartment block in Dublin.
...

The tenant-in-situ scheme may save some from the side of the road after the eviction ban is lifted. But it lumps local authorities with property it doesn’t want, hasn’t the capacity to manage and sooner or later need upgrading to meet public housing standards. Council rents are so low as to be inadequate to pay the cost of maintenance and repairs. But raising rents to even basic levels is anathema to politicians who won’t raise property taxes and even muse about introducing mortgage interest relief. That is the politics of cynicism, not concern.
 
Whether it is or isn’t the right thing to do is under dispute depending on one’s personal situation or opinion only. What exactly does Gerard Howlin mean by private landlords being “demonised” and by whom?
 
Leper said:
Whether it is or isn’t the right thing to do is under dispute depending on one’s personal situation or opinion only. What exactly does Gerard Howlin mean by private landlords being “demonised” and by whom?
Click to expand...
Have you been hiding under a rock lately. A basic expression "landlord are cashing in" is widely used by commentators and politicians. Landlords don't sell, they cash in. It annoys me each time I hear it.
 
azerty said:
Have you been hiding under a rock lately. A basic expression "landlord are cashing in" is widely used by commentators and politicians. Landlords don't sell, they cash in. It annoys me each time I hear it.
Click to expand...
As do those selling homes that they live in, or their deceased parents lived in.
As are those selling second hand cars at the current high prices.
As is anyone who is selling anything.
I agree, it's a ridiculous phrase.
 
Last edited:
Had just read that article in the IT and came here to see if it was being discussed. I agree with every single word of that piece.

Government meddling in the property market going all the way back to the Peter Bacon reports has been a disaster. I am not a landlord but I would have every sympathy with their current predicament. Many of them want to do the decent thing, but between tax treatment inequality and rent caps in an environment of rising costs, they are in a difficult position.

What the Shinners don't get of course, is that many landlords are fleeing the market now, in its current hamstrung state, out of fear for what SF would impose if they get into Government next time out. Selling their own property is nearly the only freedom they have left to exercise.

Unfortunately, if the polls continue as they are, the exodus will only increase in advance of the next General Election, regardless of what the current Government do.
 
What would happen if all rent and housing supports were removed?
What would happen if there was no eviction ban, not rent controls and the State didn't buy any houses from the existing privately owned housing stock?
How much of the problem of high housing and rent prices is being caused by the State?

Increasing HAPS and help to buy schemes just push up prices. In a supply constrained market the solution isn't to stimulate demand side inflation. All that does is push up prices which the State chases with increases to HAPS and help to buy schemes, which pushed up prices etc.

The State is pumping more capital into a market which has become dysfunctional due to an excess supply of capital. It's making the ownership of a home by working people less and less attainable.
 
"What the Shinners don't get of course, is that many landlords are fleeing the market now, in its current hamstrung state, out of fear for what SF would impose if they get into Government next time out. Selling their own property is nearly the only freedom they have left to exercise."

I think they see and know but the more dysfunctional the market gets, the more political gains they make.

As a LL, you feel like a mug when you see that your rent has barely increased in the past 3 years and is under anything advertised while constantly hearing about the apparently vast profit made. I am currently at least 50 per cent under the market price. (Same thing for the property next door where the LL has already advised the tenants that they will be his last). My property is paid, no mortgage and bought cheaply. It would be totally unaffordable if I had bought it recently and had any kind of mortgage.
At the same time, more and more regulations are imposed that distort the market a bit more. I was "delighted" to hear that my potential tenants planned to emigrate in 18 months so I know that I could do what I want with it at that point. I was specifically looking for transient tenants.
Did I help the housing crisis? No, they were not at all at risk of homelessness.
 
Last edited:
DannyBoyD said:
I don't "want to do the decent thing".

I not a charity or a philanthropist.

I want to run a professional, well regulated and properly managed business.

And much of the present system is preventing me from doing so.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you and others do want to gouge and wring every last cent out of your property. Fair enough. However I would posit that there are many that would be satisfied with charging a reasonable rent, having full control over that rent and the property that they own.

This is not mutually exclusive from a 'professional, well regulated and properly managed business'.
 
tallpaul said:
you and others do want to gouge and wring every last cent out of your property
Click to expand...
And here we go with the landlord bashing again.

You can only charge a rent that the market will bear; or sell your house at a price that the market will bear.

Someone selling their property expects to get the best price available; no one accuses them of 'gouging' or expects them to sell at a lower price just to 'do the decent thing'.
 
Does someone who sells their car or home or shoes or lap dance or box of biscuits to the purchaser who offers the highest price "gouging"?
 
I think that lifting the ban was a good thing because it was an additional disincentive for LL to rent, and the market really doesn't need that. I think that lifting the ban without the smallest plan in place (because the buying off rented property is not a new plan) was a political suicide. I even think that they would have been better of keeping the ban with a proper plan than lifting it without a plan. They don't seem to get that uncertainty create risks, which is negative for keeping and attracting LL. It's all a balance of profit and risks.
 
I think you have misunderstood! I am far from landlord bashing! I have every sympathy for the ridiculous, demonising mindset that prevails at present and I think my original post clearly demonstrates that. You have singled out one particular phrase in that post and jumped to the parapet in defence. This is natural given the current landlord bashing environment. My point is that there are many landlords who do not charge tiptop maximum rents for their property but take a more rounded, rather than balance sheet view, depending on the type of tenant they have.

As I said, fair enough if that is your strategy.
 
Purple said:
Does someone who sells their car or home or shoes or lap dance or box of biscuits to the purchaser who offers the highest price "gouging"?
Click to expand...
We are talking about rent here rather than selling, so your examples are not analogous. When there was all of the media reports of highly inflated car rental prices last year, there was plenty of talk of gouging.

Edit: oh look! There is a thread further down the page complaining about car rental prices. Go figure.
 
tallpaul said:
My point is that there are many landlords who do not charge tiptop maximum rents for their property but take a more rounded, rather than balance sheet view, depending on the type of tenant they have.
Click to expand...

They are literally incentivised to do the opposite by the RPZ legislation. If they rent at undervalue, they are literally risking a permanent diminution in the market value of their property. That's highly reckless on their part especially if they have dependants or other commitments.
 
Yes I agree. I should have been clearer: those that took a 'rounded view' before the RPZ. The RPZ has, as you have said, punished the 'reasonable' landlord for their reasonableness. Add it to the list of reasons for the exodus.
 
tallpaul said:
We are talking about rent here rather than selling, so your examples are not analogous.
Click to expand...
Selling a product or service at the highest price you can get for it is not gouging. That's the point.
tallpaul said:
When there was all of the media reports of highly inflated car rental prices last year, there was plenty of talk of gouging.

Edit: oh look! There is a thread further down the page complaining about car rental prices. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was equally stupid.
 
tallpaul said:
Yes I agree. I should have been clearer: those that took a 'rounded view' before the RPZ. The RPZ has, as you have said, punished the 'reasonable' landlord for their reasonableness. Add it to the list of reasons for the exodus.
Click to expand...
RPZ punished everyone, not just the "reasonable" landlords. I came to the market in 2014. I put my property to rent at the price I thought was the market price. By 2015 there was a rent freeze. It seems forgotten that the rental prices started increasing in late 2011 and were low until 2013 having crashed. So yes at that point they increased quickly but came from a very low base. We increased once without control applying (in July 2015 and it was with a sitting tenant). I have not been "reasonable" since then, I just followed the legislation. The high rents after that, I don't know where they come from. New investments? New LLs? Whoever. The term "reasonable" in itself is a strange one as it kind of implies it is the exception. The unlucky one or the one who didn't think forward or had no business sense. It should be widespread as they have been little private investment since then. Anyone who was in the market at that point charges now a low rent, not the reasonable one, just the law-abiding one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register