JoeRoberts
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,276
In a private estate all that is included in the purchase price. No disrespect.
Sinn Fein - Eviction Ban to July 2026
- Thread starter Greenbook
- Start date
They left because their life moved on. Nothing to do with cost, the rent is low and they were more than able to manage. Some moved to their new house, some went travelling and emigrated for a couple of years with a plot of land waiting for them at their return... The current renters are travelling the world and enjoying their life before probably buying their property in the next couple of years.
Demand - which includes.
Everybody you love (owner-occupiers) and everybody you hate (landlords/buy-to-let investors) drives demand.
I'm not sure you understand how a property developers business plan works.....let say your a developer and you've a site that has space for a hundred homes...your a risk sensitive builder that understands to maintain the price level you want and indeed need to proceed with the project you do some work on what supply looks like in the area for the next twelve months.
Your analysis/feeling suggests perhaps the local area can absorb an incremental 20 homes per calendar year where you can maintain pricing & margin and your not left holding inventory or discounting inventory into bankruptcy. These are kind of red - light, green light decisions for developers.
The 20 units per year you've hit on is based on your assumption you can sell 13 homes to owner-occupiers, 4 to the local council and 3 to investors that this mix means you can meet your average selling price and diversify your customers and reduce risk....
Your mental model @Sister Sara seems to say if the investors just disappeared out of the market the developer would still go ahead and build the same 20 houses and the split would now be 16 - owner-occupier and 4- council.....that isnt how the real world works @Sister Sara .....the developer seeks diversity in the end buyer pool such that he isn't over-indexed to one customer type and he can maintain the pricing and the margin he needs to proceed with the project......see the BTL investor didn't steal three houses from owner-occupiers, the presence of the BTL in the market provided the demand and the confidence in sufficient end points for the builder/developer to proceed to the speculative construction of 20 homes versus 17. The BTL investor in your parlance "built" three homes.
Last edited:
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 569
Everyone who buys. If landlords reduce their buying then house demand goes down, so builders build less.
The same would be true if the government deterred owner occupiers from buying (maybe encouraging emigration).
The irony is that landlords are the ones who push down the market rents.
Every time a landlord puts a house on the market, the price is pushed down a little. It is the way to push the number down.
The landlord has the dubious privilege of being the one who has to tell the tenant that market rents have gone up.
It is ultimately the system that determines the market price. By creating a shortage, government policy is the cause of the price of housing going up.
This means that landlords have to pay more for the house and so charge more for rent.
Landlords who bought 20 years ago at a low price are already selling up due to the new rules.
Last edited:
Is that possibly because
a. They cannot afford to buy where they would like to live
b. not enough properties are being built to satisfy demand?
Neither of those scenarios have resultee from small landlords buying a property to let to people that require housing of that type or in that location. Rental properties are a part of any normal housing market.
The solution or utopia you allude to requires the State to step in, not to legislate small landlords out of the market.
Last edited:
Just the debate here:
Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Dec 2025
Residential Tenancies (Winter Ban on Evictions) Bill 2025: First Stage Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Dec 2025
www.oireachtas.ie
What does it mean when Mary Butler, minister of state at Dept Taoiseach says the bill is not opposed? How does that work?
Last edited:
A bill goes through five stages to become law. This is the first. The government usually don’t stop a bill proceeding at the first stage. Usually it’s the third stage that it doesn’t pass.
It’s not just the shortage that has driven prices up. The government have pumped huge amount of money into the rental market via HAP to basically rearrange who gets a rental. It’s not creating a new rental. Something like 15% of rentals use HAP.
At the same time they have RPZ which caps the rent so god knows what the actual free market rate would be.
Thanks for the explanation @faketales.
Just saw the committee meeting from last week and many of the contributors think an eviction ban is necessary now.
Interesting discussion and agreement that the new rules make the legislation too complicated. Even Dep. Rory Ahern thought the no-fault eviction rule would apply to every tenancy from 01Mar26. And he’s supposed to be an expert on everything to do with the rental market. What chance has Joe Public.
Edit: that should be Rory Hearne.
Just saw the committee meeting from last week and many of the contributors think an eviction ban is necessary now.
Interesting discussion and agreement that the new rules make the legislation too complicated. Even Dep. Rory Ahern thought the no-fault eviction rule would apply to every tenancy from 01Mar26. And he’s supposed to be an expert on everything to do with the rental market. What chance has Joe Public.
Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate - Tuesday, 2 Dec 2025
General Scheme of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No.2) Bill: Discussion (Resumed) Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate - Tuesday, 2 Dec 2025
www.oireachtas.ie
Edit: that should be Rory Hearne.
Last edited:
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
This would only be true where supply was in excess of demand.
There is a housing shortage, demand is outstripping supply. Landlords leaving the market do not reduce demand, they increase affordable supply for owner-occupiers helping to relieve one of the choke-points in the market.
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
a. Increase property supply for owner-occupiers will make them those properties more affordable.
b. Yes.
I don't disagree with this. I'm just observing from the OP and other rules changes that across the political spectrum the days of one-property/one-generation landlords are coming to an end.
While I can empathise with anyone caught in this situation I do think overall for the long-term it is a good thing to increase the supply of owner-occupier homes and leave the rental market to investors that can provide rental accommodation over multi-generations, ie - the State and incorporated investors.
And it reduces supply for the renters, renters who are generally the least financially established. EA have been saying for some times that a lot of the houses that are coming to the market are ex-rentals, house prices haven't come down and there is still a lack of supply for owner-occupiers. It's just like a game of musical chair, there is still a chair missing.
Last edited:
Even if one wanted to achieve this, right now, the state and corporate investors are not able to achieve this goal and provide enough rentals for the current demand. Pushing small LLs out, just means less availability for renters.
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
Thats why I mentioned over the long-term.
From what I reading the SF proposal by virtue of protecting no-faults tenancies would in effect compel landlords to stay in the market in the short-term by protecting the tenancies?
For 6 months... That's not long-term. No accommodation providers will be able to step up significantly in 6 months. Actually it's a ridiculous time-frame in terms of housing. SF by their anti-landlords discourse has been one of the drivers of LLs leaving the market. One of the reasons many are selling is that they know that if there is no substantial progress in the housing situation, SF could be in the next government.
Last edited:
Maybe they should just let people leave the business if they want to. Let them sell their properties instead of making it difficult for them or trying to trap them forever into a business they dont want to be in anymore. If business is so good, someone else will be along to replace them.
Yes, it is clear from the debate that he was convinced that the no fault eviction rules applied to every tenancy after March. He was shocked to be told otherwise. He accused the Housing Minister of lying to the Dail.
He was also, until quite recently, convinced that a landlord could grant a one year lease and just insist that the tenant leave at the end of it. He thought that this could be done with the new rules as well.
Not a very bright man at all, despite his PhD (in geography, I think). Unfortunately, he and people like him drive policy in the PRS and that isn't going to change.
Eoin O'Broin is an intelligent man. I listen to him in the Housing Committee debates. He has a very good handle on the PRS and I often wonder whether his ideology is at odds with what he really believes.
He knows 6 months is too short and the ban will have to be extended. That'll just add to the chaos to the benefit of SF
Sister Sara
Registered User
- Messages
- 270
Ok I may have misconstrued the point. Reading other posts the no fault evictions are only for new tenancies from next March? I was also under the impression they were for all tenancies.