It wouldn't win them votes and they know it. There's a false perception that the current government simply don't want people to own their own homes so anything other than homeownership is perceived as a negative, and that's why it is still promoted.
It wouldn't win them votes and they know it. There's a false perception that the current government simply don't want people to own their own homes so anything other than homeownership is perceived as a negative, and that's why it is still promoted.Fair enough but surely they are not that stupid to realise if they improved the rental supply (or a min kept it stable) it would win them some votes?
"Stick" isn't working........................how much longer will we continue with "Stick" before we try "carrot"?From talking to public reps, part of the reason why this hasn't happened is because there are no guarantees it would actually keep those currently considering selling from going ahead with it. That's why you have more "stick" in form of the eviction ban (a crude instrument, but it effectively shuts the door). The other difficulty is that they don't want a scenario where "politically" landlords are seen to be getting something without giving something back in return.
Its a tricky one, but part of the problem is that many rental properties were built in the early 00s and severely hit by value drops 10 years ago, and many of the sales are looking to claw back while prices are peaking. The only way you could possibly prevent that would be via a punitive tax on non PPR sales, but thats not fair either.
I don't understand why the government haven't called out SF policy of rent freeze and not allowing landlords vacant possession of their property when selling, as two factors that are spooking investment, driving existing landlords out of the market place and exaccerbating the problem further still.It wouldn't win them votes and they know it. There's a false perception that the current government simply don't want people to own their own homes so anything other than homeownership is perceived as a negative, and that's why it is still promoted.
Actually thats basically a recipe for handing about 1/3 of the entire housing stock over to either institutional investors or the state, making housing use an even more political issue.The constitution can be changed, by the people, because the people are sovereign.
The landlords could plead their case to the people and see how they get on.
Or, alternatively, the elected government could just implement a tax on landlords which would make it uneconomical to operate. Added to an empty homes tax of, say, 50% of the property value. Should do the trick.
No it wouldn't. How many councils have extensively built social housing on their own bat in recent years? Precisely none.Actually it sounds like the USSR. Soviet style tower blocks built to house all. We know from experience how well that works in Ireland. But it would probably work better if there is no other choice of housing!
The core problem is that while many of today's 50-somethings invested in buy to lets in the 2000s, virtually none of today's 40-somethings did likewise in the 2010s, nor today's 30-somethings now.Its a tricky one, but part of the problem is that many rental properties were built in the early 00s and severely hit by value drops 10 years ago, and many of the sales are looking to claw back while prices are peaking.
There is already a punitive tax on non-PPR sales. Capital Gains Tax at 33% with no indexation despite annual inflation now circa 10% is savage, and way higher than the 40% rate with indexation relief that crippled secondhand buy to let sales in the 1990s.The only way you could possibly prevent that would be via a punitive tax on non PPR sales, but thats not fair either.
It opinions like this and feeding opinions like this that have us where we are. Forget facts and lets go with rethoric and bluster. Government interference has caused the issue in its attempts to placate ppl like you who are turkeys that seem to like voting for xmas. As a LL and a renter at the same time, trust me I had it from both ends. Locked into low rents from a tenant who stopped paying at the end (before I sold) and as a renter finding a new place because my LL quiet rightly saw the writing on the wall and was getting out. If you think one side can win, believe me both sides will eventually lose.BTL has been a disaster for housing.
I’ve seen the ex rentals and they are, almost universally,dumps. Flimsy kitchens, poorly insulated, decrepit fixtures, not painted or decorated for ages, maintenance neglected. The landlords are driven by profit and spend the bare minimum on their houses. The housing policy has been designed to help rich people get even richer , by sucking up the wages of productive workers. Treating housing as, primarily, an investment arm of the wealthy. As if that was its main purpose.
Stop playing the victim. Our pathetic government has been letting you away with murder and it’s about time we changed policy.
To an extent, yes. Even the comment "ex-rentals are all dumps." In fact they are not - rentals vary widely in quality, and when I bought my home (an ex-rental in admittedly poor condition, but still new enough for almost all issues to be remediated affordably) I left a lovely rental I'd lived in for 10 years, where admittedly much of the maintenance not done was because I was the sole tenant for 10 years and chose to live with minor issues rather than complain. In addition, some ex-rentals are extensively renovated before sale or reletting (my ex landlady replaced all furniture in an adjoining apartment she also owned, repainted it & all the kitchen cabinets before reletting it).It opinions like this and feeding opinions like this that have us where we are. Forget facts and lets go with rethoric and bluster. Government interference has caused the issue in its attempts to placate ppl like you who are turkeys that seem to like voting for xmas. As a LL and a renter at the same time, trust me I had it from both ends. Locked into low rents from a tenant who stopped paying at the end (before I sold) and as a renter finding a new place because my LL quiet rightly saw the writing on the wall and was getting out. If you think one side can win, believe me both sides will eventually lose.
I was, maybe, being a bit facetious with the total abolition suggestion. This is a scenario where private landlords might provide a service. Short term, single persons in high demand skillsets. Private landlords should be a niche market, providing, perhaps 5-10% of housing needs, to the well paid, high end,short term tenant.Serious question - how would abolishing landlords work in practice?
Would the government provide rental accommodation to everyone who needed some place to live and did not want to buy or wasn't in a position to buy at that particular time?
For example:
1. South African engineer moves to Waterford on a two year contract. His salary is 80k. He is looking for a two bed (family will visit) near the city centre with parking. The government will find such an apartment for him and rent it to him.
They would apply for a council house/apartment like everyone used to in the 70's. When my parents were young, they had a choice of three properties, in various estates. Each house had three bedrooms, a garden and two toilets. They would pay a reasonable rent, have security of tenure and a well maintained house. They could then decide to purchase a private house or, maybe, they would stay in the house forever and live happily ever after.2. An 25 year old carpenter living with his parents in Tuam meets a teacher also living with her parents in Tuam. They fall in love and decide to move in together. They are looking for a one or two bed house or apartment in Tuam, ideally within walking distance of her school. Again, the government will organise this for them and rent it to them
She would just buy a house, as she would at the moment.3. A doctor in Galway gets a job in the Mater, Dublin. She will be moving with her family to Dublin. She had placed her children in a particular school and needs a large 4 bed house within driving distance of the school. Again, government organises this for her and rents the house to her.
Again, he could buy a property. Or rent from the local authority/housing association.4. An accountant separates from his wife and leaves the family home. He needs a two bed house or apartment ideally with a garden or play area (the kids will be staying over) near his former home. Yet again, he contacts the relevant government department and they organise this for him and rent it to him.
Is this how you envisage it will work - set up a new government agency 'Residential Tenancies for All Agency', if you need someplace to rent, you just contact it, give it your specifications and it finds and organises the place for you? If not, how will it work?
Honestly, I am genuinely interested to know as the private rental market is imploding and the government will have to step in in a major way. No other country in the world has the input you suggest into its citizens' housing needs, so I am interested in hearing from you how you think we'd organise this.
How do you propose that local authorities should fund this enlargement?So, my suggestion, is for a widespread enlargement of the local authority housing stock, the development of not-for-profit housing associations and a minimal role for the private landlord.
" Landlords have absolute power in the relationship with their tenants. They can expel, without reason, after 6 months, or a year." Good soundbites, but they can't. And actually looking into the German legislation, the laws are pretty similar to what currently exists here in terms of eviction.I was, maybe, being a bit facetious with the total abolition suggestion. This is a scenario where private landlords might provide a service. Short term, single persons in high demand skillsets. Private landlords should be a niche market, providing, perhaps 5-10% of housing needs, to the well paid, high end,short term tenant.
They would apply for a council house/apartment like everyone used to in the 70's. When my parents were young, they had a choice of three properties, in various estates. Each house had three bedrooms, a garden and two toilets. They would pay a reasonable rent, have security of tenure and a well maintained house. They could then decide to purchase a private house or, maybe, they would stay in the house forever and live happily ever after.
She would just buy a house, as she would at the moment.
Again, he could buy a propety. Or rent from the local authority/housing association.
If we are going to persist with the private landlord as the mainstay of housing in Ireland, then we need to legislate accordingly. Take the German model ( rather than the North Korean) and we might begin to create a society which values the citizen over the investor. The idea that legislation , in Ireland, is restrictive is for the birds. Landlords have absolute power in the relationship with their tenants. They can expel, without reason, after 6 months, or a year. They can neglect the house without sanction. ( unlike in Germany, where the tenant is protected from eviction and can reduce their rent if the landlord is negligent)
Some of the landlords, on this thread, are quoting the constitution, which protects their right to make money from the ownership of houses. They are right, because that principle is enshrined in the constitution. The right of a private landlord to make money is protected in our Constitution – but the right to housing is not. Something needs to change.
Your suggestion of a government agency to handle housing needs is not unprecedented. Local authorities provided such services for many decades. That should have continued and developed. But, some time in the 80's, the principles changed and housing became a method for people to make money, rather than an essential human right.
So, my suggestion, is for a widespread enlargement of the local authority housing stock, the development of not-for-profit housing associations and a minimal role for the private landlord.
Not true. The vast majority of rental agreements in Ireland are 12 months or less. At the end of which the landlord can turf a family out with no reason. Landlords in Germany, use open ended leases and can only evict a tenant if they are going to live in the property themselves. They can't evict a tenant to sell the property." Landlords have absolute power in the relationship with their tenants. They can expel, without reason, after 6 months, or a year." Good soundbites, but they can't. And actually looking into the German legislation, the laws are pretty similar to what currently exists here in terms of eviction.
People pay rent, thats how its usually done.How do you propose that local authorities should fund this enlargement?
You should lookup the amount of unpaid rent due to the Local Authorities. They have no powers to collect unpaid rent and cannot evict, except for unsocial behavior.People pay rent, thats how its usually done.
A tenant in one of these properties would have to pay the guts of €400k in rent to finance its initial build. Counting ongoing rental costs will probably add sizeably to that. Then there's also the time value of money.People pay rent, thats how its usually done.
Well how did they build them in the 50's or the 60's or the 70's. How was the housing stock which were in every suburb, in every city, in every town and in every village put there, when we had a fraction of the tax take we have today.A tenant in one of these properties would have to pay the guts of €400k in rent to finance its initial build. Counting ongoing rental costs will probably add sizeably to that. Then there's also the time value of money.
You clearly haven't a clue how local authorities should fund this enlargement of their housing stock, otherwise you wouldn't answer in so glib a fashion.
Not true. Whatever the lease, the tenants have the security of permanent tenure after 6 months (that's the current law, before that it was 4 years and then 6 years) Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2021. The only reasons that a LL can evict tenants after 6 months are if they want to sell, have a family member move in, or substantially renovate. (pretty much the same as in Germany where they can also have fixed-term contracts generally for less than a year).Not true. The vast majority of rental agreements in Ireland are 12 months or less. At the end of which the landlord can turf a family out with no reason. Landlords in Germany, use open ended leases and can only evict a tenant if they are going to live in the property themselves. They can't evict a tenant to sell the property.
And, maybe, you can direct me to the legislation which allows tenants to, unilaterally, reduce the rent if they judge that the landlord is not maintaining or repairing the property.