gaaboard.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Myb8i13qY

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/investment-firms-buy-estate-of-112-new-houses-in-dublin-to-rent-out-1.4554949

Investment firms buy estate of 112 new houses in Dublin to rent out
Bay Meadows in Dublin 15 was purchased by Round Hill Capital and SFO Capital Partners

Harry McGee Political Correspondent

 
A global investment company has been involved in the acquisition of a new development of 112 houses in north Dublin in order to rent them out.

Round Hill Capital is the same company which also bought most of the houses in a Maynooth, Co Kildare, housing estate.

The company, together with SFO Capital Partners, has acquired Bay Meadows in Dublin 15, which it describes as "high-quality suburban family homes".

On the website for the new estate, the companies who have acquired the estate say they are "proud to present Bay Meadows, a brand new first let development of 112 (single family) homes located in Hollystown, Dublin 15".

The news of the acquisition of another housing estate for the rental market by Round Hill Capital comes after it emerged it acquired the majority of the 174 houses in a new estate in Maynooth.

Bay Meadows will comprise a mix of two-, three-, and four-bedroom homes. The first phase will be completed later this month, with the final phase completed in early 2022, according to the company.

Minister for Housing Darragh O'Brien said on Tuesday that he did not approve of investment funds purchasing almost entire new estates.

"Do investors have a role here, in housing in Ireland? Yes, they do as they do in most western European countries. But what I would say is that where funds are coming in and taking homes away from families, is a concern of mine."

However, he warned about any move to ban investment ventures outright. Options included exploring a ban on block-buying new homes for the private rental market outside of city centre cores.

Apartments
The company has become a significant player in the Irish buy-to-rent property market in recent years. Before moving into house acquisition it had acquired (either by itself or in joint ventures) hundreds of apartments, and four developments tailored for student accommodation with a total of 1,200 bedrooms.

That included a €123 million deal to acquire 297 high-quality apartments at Blackwood Square in Northwood, Santry as well as acquisitions of student accommodation developments in the Liberties, Dublin 8; in Bandon Road in Cork; in Bridgefield, Santry; and in Curaheen Point, Co Cork.

In September 2019, The Irish Times reported that 12 two- and three-bed yellow-brick units at the housing development Bay Meadows had been sold off plans to private buyers at the Dublin 15 site, with prices from €289,500 for the two beds and from €330,000 for the three beds.

Opposition parties strongly criticised the sale on the basis it would reduce the stock for first-time buyers. Sinn Féin housing spokesman Eoin Ó Broin said "the problem is short-term, high-yield vulture funds incentivised by Government policy" .

Acquisition
However, a spokesman for Round Hill Capital said on Tuesday: "We are committed to investing in Ireland to increase the supply of quality homes available to rent, working alongside local developers and agents."

The company said the acquisition was reflective of the wider growth of the private rental sector investment market in Ireland over the past three years.

Michael Bickford, founder and CEO at Round Hill Capital, said in a statement last week: "The counter-cyclical nature of the rental housing market means it is resilient to market cycles, as has been proven amid the economic uncertainties caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

"As such this transaction is yet further evidence of the strong appeal of the Irish build-to-rent sector for institutional capital, attracted by its resilient, long-term yields as well as the wider growth of the private rental sector investment market in Ireland over the past three years.

"We look forward to building on the first success of this venture to further expand our portfolio across Ireland."

I read some ridiculous stat on twitter yesterday about something like 903% or something of houses sold in the south in the last year(or last year can't remember which) were bought by private investors. It seems to be becoming very very hard to get on the property ladder. If it's as bad as reported the government surely need to step in?

This is abhorrent. Shelter is a basic human need, not a desire.

But then again, seeing as Irish people have shown themselves exceptionally willing since the 1990s to openly flog their own, in pursuit of easy money  through property, then maybe we are getting what we deserve.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 08:50:18 AM
I read some ridiculous stat on twitter yesterday about something like 903% or something of houses sold in the south in the last year(or last year can't remember which) were bought by private investors. It seems to be becoming very very hard to get on the property ladder. If it's as bad as reported the government surely need to step in?

The stat is fairly ridiculous. . . was it tongue in cheek or a typo??

No matter the Irish Government have totally failed the population on housing it's disgusting. They should really be stepping in to stop these vulture funds from hoovering up anything in sight and introducing rent controls to get the price of housing down in all the major cities.

I hope the move to home working will reduce the demand for housing in the cities so that the market can get back to something approaching a sensible price for a house but prices don't seem to be dropping anytime soon!

I would take it with a pinch of salt but I do suspect it is very high. It was corrected from 80 or so originally.

It's absolutely terrible and as such I can totally understand how young people are turning away from FF and FG in their droves. The approach to housing in the ROI is a national disgrace. The young people should really be out on the streets protesting.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 08:50:18 AM
I read some ridiculous stat on twitter yesterday about something like 903% or something of houses sold in the south in the last year(or last year can't remember which) were bought by private investors. It seems to be becoming very very hard to get on the property ladder. If it's as bad as reported the government surely need to step in?

This is government policy though. FFG's aim has always been to privatise everything, this is why they hawk off state resources and services to the private sector. They have consistently greased the wheels for property developers, vulture funds, landlords and wealthy billionaires. You look at how the likes of Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman are able to consistently secure state contracts and build monopolies.

They have been happy to do this for decades but now things are coming to a head, a basket case health service and a homelessness crisis has emerged from decades of policies that have looked to benefit private interests. This is the reason why they are being filleted at the polls. That's why 3 parties who would have always taken >70% of the vote for the past 30 are now on around 45% and falling.

They then have the brass neck to question the economic competence of opposition parties (baselessly as bar Labour none of those parties have been in power down south) when their track record showed they ruined the economy and have caused crises across all public services.

It's a key reason why politics will change down south. The chickens have come home to roost for FFG and the younger generation are paying the price for their cronyism and corruption.

Quote from: trailer on May 05, 2021, 09:15:29 AM
It's absolutely terrible and as such I can totally understand how young people are turning away from FF and FG in their droves. The approach to housing in the ROI is a national disgrace. The young people should really be out on the streets protesting.

House prices are beyond the salaries of an awful lot of people under 35/in lower paying jobs and there is no social house building programme to address this 

It's the same in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/30/covid-frontline-workers-priced-out-of-homeowning-in-98-of-great-britain

Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2021, 09:32:00 AM

Quote from: trailer on May 05, 2021, 09:15:29 AM
It's absolutely terrible and as such I can totally understand how young people are turning away from FF and FG in their droves. The approach to housing in the ROI is a national disgrace. The young people should really be out on the streets protesting.

House prices are beyond the salaries of an awful lot of people under 35/in lower paying jobs and there is no social house building programme to address this 

It's the same in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/30/covid-frontline-workers-priced-out-of-homeowning-in-98-of-great-britain

Not sure if it just as bad.

Kate O Connell former FG minister for Dublin Bay South & front runner in the position vacated by Eoghan Murphy, the ultra liberal back stabber owns 3 pharmacies & 5 investment properties. No doubt the Dublin Bay South ones will have her & her sister back! Welcome to the new or not so new Ireland, this girl is confused about her woke identity, or maybe she just wants it all.

Quote from: Rudi on May 05, 2021, 10:15:52 AM
Kate O Connell former FG minister for Dublin Bay South & front runner in the position vacated by Eoghan Murphy, the ultra liberal back stabber owns 3 pharmacies & 5 investment properties. No doubt the Dublin Bay South ones will have her & her sister back! Welcome to the new or not so new Ireland, this girl is confused about her woke identity, or maybe she just wants it all.

Her brother in law is political correspondent for the Independent.

The political editor of the Independent is Leo Varadkar's biographer.

You can see the trend there.

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 10:29:13 AM

Quote from: Rudi on May 05, 2021, 10:15:52 AM
Kate O Connell former FG minister for Dublin Bay South & front runner in the position vacated by Eoghan Murphy, the ultra liberal back stabber owns 3 pharmacies & 5 investment properties. No doubt the Dublin Bay South ones will have her & her sister back! Welcome to the new or not so new Ireland, this girl is confused about her woke identity, or maybe she just wants it all.

Her brother in law is political correspondent for the Independent.

The political editor of the Independent is Leo Varadkar's biographer.

You can see the trend there.

Yip its rotten to the core the media and political connections in this country. And both are terrified off an alternative approach on housing.

I am not a landlord, but would like to point out that there are good landlords and there are bad landlords. The good landlords;

- provide a much needed service
- are at the end of the phone when anything goes wrong 24x7
- have the same problem as home owners in getting tradesmen to turn up
- are not social service counsellors
- have deposits which never compensate for the mess that some tenants leave behind

Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Quote from: Orior on May 05, 2021, 02:02:25 PM
I am not a landlord, but would like to point out that there are good landlords and there are bad landlords. The good landlords;

- provide a much needed service
- are at the end of the phone when anything goes wrong 24x7
- have the same problem as home owners in getting tradesmen to turn up
- are not social service counsellors
- have deposits which never compensate for the mess that some tenants leave behind

Indeed and there are quite a few accidental landlords too. I expect though the focus is on people who are buying with a view to maxmising profit from rent by putting ridiculous pressure on some poor family or tenant. That is what should be controlled.

The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different.

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:16:22 PM
The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren't. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people "invest" in property it's an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They're every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

Quote from: Rudi on May 05, 2021, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

100% capital gains tax on second properties would be an outstanding step towards ensuring that only those wishing to pursue a career in rentals get involved. Maintenance, legal fees, depreciation etc would all be accounted before before the 100% on gains.

Shelter should be a right. Not a game.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:30:33 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:16:22 PM
The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren't. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people "invest" in property it's an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They're every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

And accidental landlords?

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Has that not be done to an extent up here recently. You can't ofset your mortgage payments against the rental income anymore.  Is that the same in The south?

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:39:04 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

There is a huge difference between someone who has a house or two that they rent versus what is going on in Dublin with companies buying entire housing estates. Simple work around more than 3 houses and you're taxed to the balls. Cuts it right out. Massive boom and bust in housing is good for nobody. You need an even steady flow, with little incremental price rises over time.
But there is a need for a rental market. People need short term rents for jobs and college etc. They don't always want to buy so the market must offer both.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:39:04 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

Food is a great comparator. If food production levels were barely enough to feed the population, and businesses and individuals bought double, treble, quadruple amounts to what they need, while other starved as they had to no way to get or pay for food, would you describe the businesses as worse than the individuals?

I guess not.

But you then mustn't equate shelter as a basic human need. I do. And the housing market is the single most disgusting thing about all of capitalism. And the flurry of greedy people who have neither the qualification nor skill to maintain a rental house, but have spent the last 30 years collecting them as investments and nest eggs (a way to generate money while doing nothing, regardless of who it hurts), need a lesson in being a good citizen.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 05, 2021, 02:38:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Has that not be done to an extent up here recently. You can't ofset your mortgage payments against the rental income anymore.  Is that the same in The south?

I thought basic rate taxpayers in the North could still offset the interest on their mortgage payments but higher rate taxpayers couldn't from April 2020?

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:34:15 PM

Quote from: Rudi on May 05, 2021, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

100% capital gains tax on second properties would be an outstanding step towards ensuring that only those wishing to pursue a career in rentals get involved. Maintenance, legal fees, depreciation etc would all be accounted before before the 100% on gains.

Shelter should be a right. Not a game.

What about the average 2-3% rate of inflation? Would that be accounted for? A lot of people who invest their capital do it because offers a better return interest rates in the bank. That's obviously not ground breaking news. The other is that property is a great offset against the hungry monster of inflation. I take your point on the capital gains though. However a lot of landlords don't even consider selling because of the hit they would get on capital gains as it is as they are already in the higher tax bracket.

Of course it would be adjusted for inflation.

Your point about  it being a better investment than saving is a moot point to me. If it wasn't an option, then something else - preferably not a basic human need - would become a more attractive investment than saving.

There's also a very simple other point. If the average joe wasn't spending 50%+ of his income on shelter, they would have both a lot more leverage to save and spend.

Quote from: Rudi on May 05, 2021, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

That's how I see it.

Property and land is becoming an ever appreciating commodity and those with money can now buy it up and profit off it thus depriving someone who actually has a genuine need for home ownership.

Governments are happy to allow this happen though, many of those who will vote on legislation are landlords themselves. First thing I'd do would be to deny any politician who is a landlord and therefore has a vested interest being allowed to take part on legislation relating to home ownership and rental caps.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

No, you should put all your savings into the bank and let them get rich off the back of it!

If you have money and can afford the payments and hassle of being a landlord then do it, its the perfect nest egg for retirement.

I'd love to do it and currently paying what seems like a mortgage for my student daughter!

Quote from: trailer on May 05, 2021, 02:48:24 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:39:04 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

You could extrapolate on that a lot though. Where do you stop.... food?

Surely the banks are currently doing that with interest on mortgages.

There is a huge difference between someone who has a house or two that they rent versus what is going on in Dublin with companies buying entire housing estates. Simple work around more than 3 houses and you're taxed to the balls. Cuts it right out. Massive boom and bust in housing is good for nobody. You need an even steady flow, with little incremental price rises over time.
But there is a need for a rental market. People need short term rents for jobs and college etc. They don't always want to buy so the market must offer both.

The principle is the exact same. Exploiting a housing crisis to make money.

The only difference is that the chap with the two or three properties hasn't got the same financial capital to buy more because if he had then he would.

Policy makers aren't interested in tackling this though.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 05, 2021, 03:18:07 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

No, you should put all your savings into the bank and let them get rich off the back of it!

If you have money and can afford the payments and hassle of being a landlord then do it, its the perfect nest egg for retirement.

I'd love to do it and currently paying what seems like a mortgage for my student daughter!

But the issue is if everyone could they would.

The fact that it's allowed makes it tougher on people to buy their own home or afford rent. Those who can afford it can increase their wealth while others are screwed.

Quote from: Rudi on May 05, 2021, 02:17:33 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Tax at 80 percent on a second rental property & 95 on a third. Put an end to quangos and vulture funds, & vultures like poster girl Kate.

This for me would be great if it happened.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on May 05, 2021, 02:38:36 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 02:07:47 PM
Surely it's not that hard to bring in legislation that would prohibit or disincentivise people to own multiple properties.

Of course that might sound too much like socialism for the politicians in charge.

Has that not be done to an extent up here recently. You can't ofset your mortgage payments against the rental income anymore.  Is that the same in The south?

No it's not. the lowered the % you could offset, a few years ago. But they've actually brought it back up to 100%.

edit: I'm talking mortgage interest. which is I presume what you meant. you could hardly offset the actual payment of the capital in the North until recently?

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

To own your own property?

Quote from: thebigfella on May 05, 2021, 03:50:22 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:35:11 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:33:30 PM
I don't agree. So someone who buys one more house is as guilty as a business who owns hundreds?

It's exactly the same motivation. To make money at someone else's expense from a basic human need. It's a disgusting way of life.

To own your own property?

No. The need for shelter.

Surely you can relate the surge in rental prices with a surge of people and businesses buying up multiple properties? If not, why not?

——

Do we really expect public servants - firemen, police, ambulance drivers, nurses, refuse collectors, etc. - to travel 90 minutes in from far-reaching suburbs to do work they can do elsewhere? Because put simple, they can't afford even suburban rent and mortgages on their salaries.

Or do we want them all to start on €100k a year, regardless of whether they're useful or not?

I can't see how we can have it both ways.

Gardai used to provide a lot of rental space in Dublin but the involvement of international capital tears the arse out of it.They see the rent as a yield - say it's 5% - it's far more than they can get investing in bonds or whatever they used to do.

The big question that will have to be answered is will construction workers work for nothing on affordable housing when an investment firm is willing to pay €414,000 per rental property (as they did in Santry) before ground is even broke? Have seen figures that gov should be able to build 100,000 units at €50,000 per unit. When our best tradesmen head to America and Australia where there will be untold work under Biden's stimulus package, can't see them working for nothing in Ireland. It's backbreaking and hard work. Taxpayer will need to pony up at least 40b to pay for that housing. Eliminating the vulture funds will not eliminate construction costs and cost of supplies in a global market, or developer hesitancy to build without guaranteed profit. Have not seen one party address that.

Quote from: trailer on May 05, 2021, 09:15:29 AM
It's absolutely terrible and as such I can totally understand how young people are turning away from FF and FG in their droves. The approach to housing in the ROI is a national disgrace. The young people should really be out on the streets protesting.

The problem is that nobody on social media is telling them they should protest.

Trump being elected, BLM, women's rights, equal pay, and they're all out with their placards.

Yields at 5% or whatever will draw more money in and drive up prices. That is what happened when outside capital came into other industries.
Salaries won't rise at the same rate and house prices will be out of sync with the real economy. Then it's only a matter of time until prices collapse.

The Government should tsx rents at 80% to dampen down financial interest in Irish housing.

I've seen an issue locally where houses have come up for sale, regular 3/4 bed semi D's with estate agents. Their has been plenty of interest for young couples and families to look at buying or trading up from apartments. But in number of cases the local authority have waded in and been buying these up and out bidding anyone.

They making it hard for people to get their own property and also building their own social housing.

Are these purchases right? They seem to be counter productive as they force people to stay renting or even onto their own lists if they priced out of the market.

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:30:33 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:16:22 PM
The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren't. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people "invest" in property it's an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They're every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

At present rents have gone up more than houses. If people or companies do not purchase houses to rent then those rents would increase even more, in the absence of adequate supply.  This is not a simple problem to solve in the short term, you can favour one group more than others, but someone loses out. 
However, the Maynooth situation is not ideal, it would be better if the big companies providing rentals would develop some sites of their own and increase the supply.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 05, 2021, 10:34:00 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on May 05, 2021, 02:30:33 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 02:16:22 PM
The big business landlords are different though. They won't be a person with compassion / empathy etc. They'll just be businesses looking for a quick buck. They're unlikely to be too humane.

The individual landlords of the landlords who own a small number of houses are different

No they aren't. You might to tell yourself otherwise, but when people "invest" in property it's an investment that ensures that everyone must pay more for property.  They're every last bit as culpable in the housing crisis as the big corporations. Every last bit.

At present rents have gone up more than houses. If people or companies do not purchase houses to rent then those rents would increase even more, in the absence of adequate supply.  This is not a simple problem to solve in the short term, you can favour one group more than others, but someone loses out. 
However, the Maynooth situation is not ideal, it would be better if the big companies providing rentals would develop some sites of their own and increase the supply.

How on earth would those rents increase further if venture capitalists weren't buying those house?

One of the dumbest contributions I've ever read on this forum. If those houses were instead being bought up first time buyers and the likes who are currently the people who are being squeezed in the rental market, are currently the people who are part of the reason the rental demand is so high, rental demand is then reduced.

What you have said is typical neo-liberal nonsense. The govt policies of enabling investors gobble up residential properties is the driver behind an insane rental market.

Quote from: Angelo on May 06, 2021, 09:11:31 AM
One of the dumbest contributions I've ever read on this forum.

I suggest you look to your own posts for that. How is Castro today?

Quote from: Angelo on May 06, 2021, 09:11:31 AM
f those houses were instead being bought up first time buyers and the likes who are currently the people who are being squeezed in the rental market, are currently the people who are part of the reason the rental demand is so high, rental demand is then reduced.

What you have said is typical neo-liberal nonsense. The govt policies of enabling investors gobble up residential properties is the driver behind an insane rental market.

It is the same number of peopple and the same number of houses either way, whatever way you divide it.

Quote from: armaghniac on May 06, 2021, 12:00:30 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 06, 2021, 09:11:31 AM
One of the dumbest contributions I've ever read on this forum.

I suggest you look to your own posts for that. How is Castro today?

Quote from: Angelo on May 06, 2021, 09:11:31 AM
f those houses were instead being bought up first time buyers and the likes who are currently the people who are being squeezed in the rental market, are currently the people who are part of the reason the rental demand is so high, rental demand is then reduced.

What you have said is typical neo-liberal nonsense. The govt policies of enabling investors gobble up residential properties is the driver behind an insane rental market.

It is the same number of peopple and the same number of houses either way, whatever way you divide it.

It is. The difference being that first time buyers would then have their own home that they can own, that are not at the risk of vulture funds driving up rental prices and market prices and making having a roof over your head unaffordable.

And it's far better for the rental market that there is more people owning their own homes to live in than it would be with more people fighting it out on a frenzied rental markets where vulture funds are looking to make gains on their investment and are in turn dictating the rental market which prohibits renters from ever being able to build up the deposit required.

That is why your idiotic statement that these vulture funds are actually good for the rental market are beyond stupid.

Take a couple in Dublin say, combined annual wage of €90k.
Currently renting a house at €1,500 a month.
Maybe their take home pay is 65k after tax.
Perhaps they have children.
Perhaps they are both commuters.
Cars to run, tax, service.
Insurance, bills.

Where do they save a deposit for a house up there?

And forget about single people, forget about people on low income jobs. They're completely fucked.

With the rental market out there, buying a property and renting it out is a no brainer in terms of making money. This impacts negatively though on people who are genuinely looking to buy a home to live in, it impacts on those with a genuine need to housing and I think people with multiple properties should be taxed to the hilt insofar as it encourages them to sell off their additional properties.

A number of years ago there was an expectation that we would be following the German model where nobody owns a house. With work being migratory, then then would be moving on a frequent basis therefore renting is a better option. Perhaps Covid and working from home had bucked that trend.

Quote from: Orior on May 06, 2021, 12:30:15 PM
A number of years ago there was an expectation that we would be following the German model where nobody owns a house. With work being migratory, then then would be moving on a frequent basis therefore renting is a better option. Perhaps Covid and working from home had bucked that trend.

That sort of system will only really work when a huge amount of residential property is either owned by the state or the rental market is heavily restricted by the state.

Essentially when you turn basic human needs such as housing and health services over to the free market it's a recipe for disaster as corporate greed will come before provision of adequate needs and services.

Quote from: Orior on May 06, 2021, 12:30:15 PM
A number of years ago there was an expectation that we would be following the German model where nobody owns a house. With work being migratory, then then would be moving on a frequent basis therefore renting is a better option. Perhaps Covid and working from home had bucked that trend.

Many Europeans don't fathom the absolute want to own their own homes in Ireland. They like the model of mobility, up scaling or  downsizing as circumstances change, long term rental etc. Particularly in large urban areas.

The housing sector is massively complex. We also in a position where cost to build is rising as we are a high labour cost society (partly due to the requirement to fund living costs like rent and ownership) and materials, land prices etc are only rising. There is an increasing middle ground that people won't be able to afford ownership due to costs and mortgage requirements.

Some parties pull pie in sky figures for house building but there is no short cuts.

You are right that Covid and changes to work practices might represent opportunities for moving away from urban centre of the big cities. Work remotely and travel couple days a week.

Quote from: Louther on May 06, 2021, 12:37:53 PM

Quote from: Orior on May 06, 2021, 12:30:15 PM
A number of years ago there was an expectation that we would be following the German model where nobody owns a house. With work being migratory, then then would be moving on a frequent basis therefore renting is a better option. Perhaps Covid and working from home had bucked that trend.

Many Europeans don't fathom the absolute want to own their own homes in Ireland. They like the model of mobility, up scaling or  downsizing as circumstances change, long term rental etc. Particularly in large urban areas.

The housing sector is massively complex. We also in a position where cost to build is rising as we are a high labour cost society (partly due to the requirement to fund living costs like rent and ownership) and materials, land prices etc are only rising. There is an increasing middle ground that people won't be able to afford ownership due to costs and mortgage requirements.

Some parties pull pie in sky figures for house building but there is no short cuts.

You are right that Covid and changes to work practices might represent opportunities for moving away from urban centre of the big cities. Work remotely and travel couple days a week.

Building materials are in short supply at present and prices are increasing on a near-monthly basis, and I hear this morning the price of timber is nearly increasing on a weekly basis. The price of steel and concrete are crazy at present. And there doesn't seem to be any slow down. Labour prices are crazy as well. There is a massive shortage of tradespeople (good ones) and trying to get anyone to look at a smallish job is impossible. Lads would hardly get out of their beds for £150 quid a day cash in hand. In one way fair play, make hay when the sun shines but there is another bubble coming and construction is going to take a big hit.

Quote from: Angelo on May 05, 2021, 09:17:57 AM

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 05, 2021, 08:50:18 AM
I read some ridiculous stat on twitter yesterday about something like 903% or something of houses sold in the south in the last year(or last year can't remember which) were bought by private investors. It seems to be becoming very very hard to get on the property ladder. If it's as bad as reported the government surely need to step in?

This is government policy though. FFG's aim has always been to privatise everything, this is why they hawk off state resources and services to the private sector. They have consistently greased the wheels for property developers, vulture funds, landlords and wealthy billionaires. You look at how the likes of Denis O'Brien and Larry Goodman are able to consistently secure state contracts and build monopolies.

They have been happy to do this for decades but now things are coming to a head, a basket case health service and a homelessness crisis has emerged from decades of policies that have looked to benefit private interests. This is the reason why they are being filleted at the polls. That's why 3 parties who would have always taken >70% of the vote for the past 30 are now on around 45% and falling.

They then have the brass neck to question the economic competence of opposition parties (baselessly as bar Labour none of those parties have been in power down south) when their track record showed they ruined the economy and have caused crises across all public services.

It's a key reason why politics will change down south. The chickens have come home to roost for FFG and the younger generation are paying the price for their cronyism and corruption.

Excellent post sir.

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/ireland-investment-housing-5428746-May2021/?utm_source=shortlink

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/housing-gives-insight-into-ideological-compatibility-of-ff-and-fg-1.4557573?mode=amp

With the advent of self-government, Cumann na nGaedheal identified the housing problem as a priority but only 14,000 houses were built from public subsidy between 1922 and 1929. The following decade, Fianna Fáil tackled the issue more decisively: an average of 12,000 houses a year were built with state aid in the decade 1932-1942, with an obvious employment and social dividend as well as a political one for Fianna Fáil.

Fine Gael at different stages was also capable of confronting its responsibilities in relation to housing: in 1948 it called for an "immediate all-out drive to provide houses for the working and middle classes at reasonable rates" and, with the Labour Party, brought a new impetuous to social housing construction at that stage, as it did again from 1973-1977.

Kate O Connell not running in the by election, doesn't feel she has a chance of been the FG rep. I suppose thats happens when you isolate yourself by dissing your boss, dissing your party in public, making up stories, being a total un-regulated mouth-piece & bitch to your colleagues.
Maybe she can join the far left, people before profit crowd, but they smell to bad & probably don't own their own property. Nothing in common there. So who can confused Kate join?

Quote from: Rudi on May 07, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Kate O Connell not running in the by election, doesn't feel she has a chance of been the FG rep. I suppose thats happens when you isolate yourself by dissing your boss, dissing your party in public, making up stories, being a total un-regulated mouth-piece & bitch to your colleagues.
Maybe she can join the far left, people before profit crowd, but they smell to bad & probably don't own their own property. Nothing in common there. So who can confused Kate join?

Bet you a lump of turf she was bullied out?

Quote from: johnnycool on May 07, 2021, 03:22:51 PM

Quote from: Rudi on May 07, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Kate O Connell not running in the by election, doesn't feel she has a chance of been the FG rep. I suppose thats happens when you isolate yourself by dissing your boss, dissing your party in public, making up stories, being a total un-regulated mouth-piece & bitch to your colleagues.
Maybe she can join the far left, people before profit crowd, but they smell to bad & probably don't own their own property. Nothing in common there. So who can confused Kate join?

Bet you a lump of turf she was bullied out?

Yeah, but she was no shrinking violet hereslf. Live by the sword die by the sword. In fairness the electrotate did speak last time out. Depriving her a seat at the Seanad smacks of grass roots "getting their own back"

Quote from: Rudi on May 07, 2021, 03:45:11 PM

Quote from: johnnycool on May 07, 2021, 03:22:51 PM

Quote from: Rudi on May 07, 2021, 02:41:05 PM
Kate O Connell not running in the by election, doesn't feel she has a chance of been the FG rep. I suppose thats happens when you isolate yourself by dissing your boss, dissing your party in public, making up stories, being a total un-regulated mouth-piece & bitch to your colleagues.
Maybe she can join the far left, people before profit crowd, but they smell to bad & probably don't own their own property. Nothing in common there. So who can confused Kate join?

Bet you a lump of turf she was bullied out?

Yeah, but she was no shrinking violet hereslf. Live by the sword die by the sword. In fairness the electrotate did speak last time out. Depriving her a seat at the Seanad smacks of grass roots "getting their own back"

She took a gamble. Didn't just back Coveney in leadership race but went all in against Varadker. It was a strategic play to put her in a strong position against Murphy, who was Varadker's campaign manager so would have been set for a ministerial post if Varadker won. She had to know that FG keeping two seats was going to be a long shot.
She gambled. She lost.
I think she will be ok.

https://twitter.com/aoifegracemoore/status/1393193394466435072   ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: macker15 on May 14, 2021, 11:10:34 PM
https://twitter.com/aoifegracemoore/status/1393193394466435072   ;D ;D ;D

Jaysus he's  useless with a spade ;D

Thon boy hasn't done much digging in his time!

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/state-invested-in-cuckoo-fund-that-snapped-up-hundreds-of-maynooth-homes-b11f56ca

Not a good look for FFG.

SF are also neoliberal
Go bhfóire Dia orainn.

I'm bringing the above post to the moderator's attention.

It's a classic case of the same posters trying to turn every thread into the same debate ad nauseam.

Quote from: Angelo on May 16, 2021, 05:21:36 PM
I'm bringing the above post to the moderator's attention.

It's a classic case of the same posters trying to turn every thread into the same debate ad nauseam.

Go ahead.
You can't diss FF/FG about neoliberalism when SF are neoliberal.
It's the same rancid system. It's why Tyrone is so negelcted as well.

A big problem is the planning laws and NIMBYism from people/politicians. Several housing projects originally approved for planning permission have been overturned in the courts recently. You also have politicians claiming more homes/apartments have to built and the likes of Eoin O'Broin and Leo Varadkar objecting to planning applications in their own constituencies. It seems everyone wants more homes built just not around them

Quote from: dublin7 on May 16, 2021, 05:32:50 PM
A big problem is the planning laws and NIMBYism from people/politicians. Several housing projects originally approved for planning permission have been overturned in the courts recently. You also have politicians claiming more homes/apartments have to built and the likes of Eoin O'Broin and Leo Varadkar objecting to planning applications in their own constituencies. It seems everyone wants more homes built just not around them

There are no controls on bank liquidity. Asset bubbles are driven by bank lending and interest rates. The latter are far too low. Combined with bank behaviour prices go through the roof.
When it crashes it will be exactly the same as 2009. The last ones in will get hosed.

Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2021, 08:47:32 AM
Minister for Housing Darragh O'Brien said on Tuesday that he did not approve of investment funds purchasing almost entire new estates.

"Do investors have a role here, in housing in Ireland? Yes, they do as they do in most western European countries."

No they f**king don't.

When the price of rent is equivalent to a mortgage, if not more - then they absolutely have no business near domestic property.

If I were in charge, the simple rules would be:
- a house must be owned by an individual.
- no individual can own more than 2 houses (with a 5 exemption year period for inheritance matters).

Simple and to the point.

I'm sure folks will point toward student housing etc - to which I'd respond - so what? There will be enough people willing to invest their "second" house as a student house and rent it to sort that out - without requiring investment companies etc.

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on May 17, 2021, 07:24:43 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2021, 08:47:32 AM
Minister for Housing Darragh O'Brien said on Tuesday that he did not approve of investment funds purchasing almost entire new estates.

"Do investors have a role here, in housing in Ireland? Yes, they do as they do in most western European countries."

No they f**king don't.

When the price of rent is equivalent to a mortgage, if not more - then they absolutely have no business near domestic property.

If I were in charge, the simple rules would be:
- a house must be owned by an individual.
- no individual can own more than 2 houses (with a 5 exemption year period for inheritance matters).

Simple and to the point.

I'm sure folks will point toward student housing etc - to which I'd respond - so what? There will be enough people willing to invest their "second" house as a student house and rent it to sort that out - without requiring investment companies etc.

Agree with fully.

It has been FFG policy to make housing a commodity for investors. Many FFG TDs are landlords though and really should be banned from voting on housing legislation.

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on May 17, 2021, 07:24:43 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2021, 08:47:32 AM
Minister for Housing Darragh O'Brien said on Tuesday that he did not approve of investment funds purchasing almost entire new estates.

"Do investors have a role here, in housing in Ireland? Yes, they do as they do in most western European countries."

No they f**king don't.

When the price of rent is equivalent to a mortgage, if not more - then they absolutely have no business near domestic property.

If I were in charge, the simple rules would be:
- a house must be owned by an individual.
- no individual can own more than 2 houses (with a 5 exemption year period for inheritance matters).

Simple and to the point.

I'm sure folks will point toward student housing etc - to which I'd respond - so what? There will be enough people willing to invest their "second" house as a student house and rent it to sort that out - without requiring investment companies etc.

I want to agree with you, but the logistics involved in a housing chain (if sale A falls through, then sale B falls too, so sale C can't happen, and sale D has to come off the market) would make your proposal one of extraordinary stress, luck,  and legal intervention.

If you refer to my earlier post about increasing capital gains tax to the point that only rental companies would aspire to own multiple properties, I think it achieves the same goals, but more efficiently

I think there needs to be a bit of realism too, in that property is hardly affordable in other successful cities. Trying buying a house in Paris, London, Madrid. Or Stockholm, Copenhagen, Vienna.

It was mentioned earlier that Irish people are quite unusual in a European context in wanting to own houses. One of the biggest reasons for that is that it was couple of generations earlier when 'ordinary people' in such cities realized they couldn't afford to buy houses in the big cities! But someone owns them!

Dublin was late to the game in a European context in terms of high property prices. When it came, it came big. There was a great chance for a rebase and change of policy after the 2008 crash. But instead all we got from the media and the opposition parties was how terrible it was that property prices had fallen!  'Negative equity' was the buzzword of all opposition politicians, when really that was a small problem - so long as you could afford the mortgage repayments.

So instead of us embracing low(ish) property prices and put in policies to try and keep it that way, incentives were put in to ignite the property market, to encourage outside investors, to help everyone who owned a property to push those prices up, but make it really hard for future potential house buyers to get into the property market! 

The biggest problem with politics is how the system makes everyone short sighted. The only thing that matters is getting elected in the next election. So politicians on all sides lumped into the need to help those in negative equity, regardless of the long term consequences.

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 09:58:54 AM
I think there needs to be a bit of realism too, in that property is hardly affordable in other successful cities. Trying buying a house in Paris, London, Madrid. Or Stockholm, Copenhagen, Vienna.

It was mentioned earlier that Irish people are quite unusual in a European context in wanting to own houses. One of the biggest reasons for that is that it was couple of generations earlier when 'ordinary people' in such cities realized they couldn't afford to buy houses in the big cities! But someone owns them!

Dublin was late to the game in a European context in terms of high property prices. When it came, it came big. There was a great chance for a rebase and change of policy after the 2008 crash. But instead all we got from the media and the opposition parties was how terrible it was that property prices had fallen!  'Negative equity' was the buzzword of all opposition politicians, when really that was a small problem - so long as you could afford the mortgage repayments.

So instead of us embracing low(ish) property prices and put in policies to try and keep it that way, incentives were put in to ignite the property market, to encourage outside investors, to help everyone who owned a property to push those prices up, but make it really hard for future potential house buyers to get into the property market! 

The biggest problem with politics is how the system makes everyone short sighted. The only thing that matters is getting elected in the next election. So politicians on all sides lumped into the need to help those in negative equity, regardless of the long term consequences.

What's rental like in these places relative to a price of a mortgage?

The issue seems to be that people are struggling to buy a house in Dublin, but the rental market is probably even more expensive than repaying a mortgage couples can't get.

A FFG created problem, more by design than accident.

the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

What's the alternative?

Most annual rental payments will top the mortgage of an equivalent property.

Have a look here.

https://www.daft.ie/property-for-rent/dublin-city/houses?showMap=false

You're looking at monthly rental prices starting at 2k per month in Dublin for an apartment/house.

A 400k 30 year mortgage is €1,600 per month via a quick google search

For someone under 40 who does not hail from money then you cannot win.

>25k on rent is absolutely insane but when you have FFG landlords voting on housing and rental legislation then it's hardly by accident.

People can't save the deposits to get a mortgage so they fleeced on rental properties by private investors who can afford the houses and make massive profits off the rental market. The game is rigged, it's been rigged by the policies and legislation introduced by FFG.

Another example here.

Property goes on the market, 2 bed house at 305k.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/new-to-market/latest-dublin-15-scheme-has-two-bed-houses-from-305-000-1.4005323

The same property is now on the rental market at €1,975 pm.

A thirty year mortgage of 270k with a 35k deposit has monthly repayments of almost half of the rent - €1,075 pm.

To say what Hound has said is just completely disingenuous.

People can't save the deposits for mortgages because they are being fleeced by landlords and vulture funds on the rental market.

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 10:16:19 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

What's the alternative?

Most annual rental payments will top the mortgage of an equivalent property.

Decentralising of the job market really needs to happen.

Gov bodies need their headquarters moved out of Dublin and shared around the country and ensure there's more on offer to entice new industries to locate in Cork, Galway, Sligo, Ennis, Wexford, Kilkenny and the likes.

The demand for housing in the Greater Dublin area is based on the need to be near the job market to a larger extent.

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 10:16:19 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

What's the alternative?

Most annual rental payments will top the mortgage of an equivalent property.

Decentralising of the job market really needs to happen.

Gov bodies need their headquarters moved out of Dublin and shared around the country and ensure there's more on offer to entice new industries to locate in Cork, Galway, Sligo, Ennis, Wexford, Kilkenny and the likes.

The demand for housing in the Greater Dublin area is based on the need to be near the job market to a larger extent.

Would certainly help but has there been enough infrastructural development outside of Dublin to make it feasible? Not a chance.

Govt incompetence is a severe issue, they completely make a balls out of every capital project they do - overbudget, delayed and not up to standard. You look at the children's hospital and the fiasco there, the national broadband and the fiasco there etc etc.

I think is certainly a good idea in theory but in order for it to work, you need the right infrastructure and capital investment. It would be great to see a strategy both sides of the border than would implement a proper rail network on this island. Imagine what something like that could do both in terms of the climate issues, jobs commuting and consumer benefits.

You'd genuinely like to see some intelligent long term planning in place. I think FFG have proven for a long time now that they can't be trusted with the tax payers money.

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 11:03:32 AM

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 10:16:19 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

What's the alternative?

Most annual rental payments will top the mortgage of an equivalent property.

Decentralising of the job market really needs to happen.

Gov bodies need their headquarters moved out of Dublin and shared around the country and ensure there's more on offer to entice new industries to locate in Cork, Galway, Sligo, Ennis, Wexford, Kilkenny and the likes.

The demand for housing in the Greater Dublin area is based on the need to be near the job market to a larger extent.

Would certainly help but has there been enough infrastructural development outside of Dublin to make it feasible? Not a chance.

Govt incompetence is a severe issue, they completely make a balls out of every capital project they do - overbudget, delayed and not up to standard. You look at the children's hospital and the fiasco there, the national broadband and the fiasco there etc etc.

I think is certainly a good idea in theory but in order for it to work, you need the right infrastructure and capital investment. It would be great to see a strategy both sides of the border than would implement a proper rail network on this island. Imagine what something like that could do both in terms of the climate issues, jobs commuting and consumer benefits.

You'd genuinely like to see some intelligent long term planning in place. I think FFG have proven for a long time now that they can't be trusted with the tax payers money.

Hard to fault the roads west and south out of Dublin as Cork is linked with Motorway the whole way and so is Galway. Can't say I know much about telecoms and the likes but on the face of it infrastructure isn't too bad IMO.

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 11:51:35 AM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 11:03:32 AM

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 10:16:19 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

What's the alternative?

Most annual rental payments will top the mortgage of an equivalent property.

Decentralising of the job market really needs to happen.

Gov bodies need their headquarters moved out of Dublin and shared around the country and ensure there's more on offer to entice new industries to locate in Cork, Galway, Sligo, Ennis, Wexford, Kilkenny and the likes.

The demand for housing in the Greater Dublin area is based on the need to be near the job market to a larger extent.

Would certainly help but has there been enough infrastructural development outside of Dublin to make it feasible? Not a chance.

Govt incompetence is a severe issue, they completely make a balls out of every capital project they do - overbudget, delayed and not up to standard. You look at the children's hospital and the fiasco there, the national broadband and the fiasco there etc etc.

I think is certainly a good idea in theory but in order for it to work, you need the right infrastructure and capital investment. It would be great to see a strategy both sides of the border than would implement a proper rail network on this island. Imagine what something like that could do both in terms of the climate issues, jobs commuting and consumer benefits.

You'd genuinely like to see some intelligent long term planning in place. I think FFG have proven for a long time now that they can't be trusted with the tax payers money.

Hard to fault the roads west and south out of Dublin as Cork is linked with Motorway the whole way and so is Galway. Can't say I know much about telecoms and the likes but on the face of it infrastructure isn't too bad IMO.

The roads in to Dublin are good, sure. And maybe they won't be quite as busy as pre-pandemic. But still, rail is preferable for commuting if it is done properly, but it's not. For example, Mullingar is just 50 miles from Dublin City centre - but the morning trains take 90 mins to get to Connolly. It should be at least 40% quicker. Kilkenny should be a doable round trip on train - but it's not. These are 20,000+ population towns that are not that expensive to buy and live in. Especially on Dublin salaries.
Maybe these trips will be more doable for those who will be on a more hybrid office/remote model , post pandemic.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/i-ve-spent-55-000-in-rent-millennials-share-experiences-of-the-property-crisis-1.4564258

My husband is in his 40s, we want to have children. We have already waited years. We have no space for children or security and it is unlikely to happen for us now.
'We'd love to start a family of our own but unless we're willing to house share with more people, there are no options.'

Quote from: shark on May 17, 2021, 12:09:39 PM

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 11:51:35 AM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 11:03:32 AM

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 10:34:13 AM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 10:16:19 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 17, 2021, 10:10:34 AM
the only rational thing for first time buyers  to do now is stay out of the market.
When prices fall interest rates will rise. A double sucker punch.

A 500K flat in the arsehole of Meath at 1% will be worth 200-250k at 5%.
But the mortgage will be based on 500K. So the monthly cost will be considerably higher along with negative equity.

What's the alternative?

Most annual rental payments will top the mortgage of an equivalent property.

Decentralising of the job market really needs to happen.

Gov bodies need their headquarters moved out of Dublin and shared around the country and ensure there's more on offer to entice new industries to locate in Cork, Galway, Sligo, Ennis, Wexford, Kilkenny and the likes.

The demand for housing in the Greater Dublin area is based on the need to be near the job market to a larger extent.

Would certainly help but has there been enough infrastructural development outside of Dublin to make it feasible? Not a chance.

Govt incompetence is a severe issue, they completely make a balls out of every capital project they do - overbudget, delayed and not up to standard. You look at the children's hospital and the fiasco there, the national broadband and the fiasco there etc etc.

I think is certainly a good idea in theory but in order for it to work, you need the right infrastructure and capital investment. It would be great to see a strategy both sides of the border than would implement a proper rail network on this island. Imagine what something like that could do both in terms of the climate issues, jobs commuting and consumer benefits.

You'd genuinely like to see some intelligent long term planning in place. I think FFG have proven for a long time now that they can't be trusted with the tax payers money.

Hard to fault the roads west and south out of Dublin as Cork is linked with Motorway the whole way and so is Galway. Can't say I know much about telecoms and the likes but on the face of it infrastructure isn't too bad IMO.

The roads in to Dublin are good, sure. And maybe they won't be quite as busy as pre-pandemic. But still, rail is preferable for commuting if it is done properly, but it's not. For example, Mullingar is just 50 miles from Dublin City centre - but the morning trains take 90 mins to get to Connolly. It should be at least 40% quicker. Kilkenny should be a doable round trip on train - but it's not. These are 20,000+ population towns that are not that expensive to buy and live in. Especially on Dublin salaries.
Maybe these trips will be more doable for those who will be on a more hybrid office/remote model , post pandemic.

How about looking at it the other way round and set up a job market in Mullingar rather than everything being Dublin centric.

There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

There's not much point earning big bucks in Dublin when you have to spunk most of it on rent/mortgage and the extra cost of living.

Young families not able to afford to rent let alone buy bigger properties to allow them to have kids.. Move the jobs out of Dublin and make it viable for big business to do so and the housing market in Dublin will cool down a good bit but maybe some people don't want that.

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

There is certainly truth in that.
But we are probably more taking about those who are slightly older and thinking about starting a family.
I work in a tech company. The age profile is young, and for sure the 24 year old Sales Development Rep wants to live in an apartment in the city centre. But the 32 year old who has just got engaged, and would like a 4 bedroom house in which to raise a family, might be seeking something different. They probably won't have any problem getting approval for a €400k+ property. But €400k won't buy much of a 4 bed house in Dublin.
The pandemic has changed things in my world. There is no way I'll be back in the office full time again. It's just not necessary. At the start of the pandemic I lived walking distance from work, as I wouldn't entertain commuting every day. We have moved outside the M50 now, as I know I'll only face that commute at most 3 times a week. More often 1 day, I suspect. I'm seeing this replicated among others in my company. This should help the overall picture a small bit - but I guess every job doesn't have remote capability.

The pandemic is a game changer up north too with tech companies IMO. Only the untrusting ones, aka fintech, won't allow people the flexibility to do what you're doing - it's what I plan to do too.

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

There is but a 40 year old perspective vs a 25 year olds is much different.

There is no mindset that you need to be in Dublin to be regarded as successful, you do need to be in Dublin in some industries to open up a bigger pool of potential jobs or careers. That's no different to any other country and major cities.

Decentralisation is not the answer and certainly not if the infrastructure is not in place for big companies. Remote working will be the way forward because it gives people the option to choose where they life and whether the higher cost of living is worth it.

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 02:23:41 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

There's not much point earning big bucks in Dublin when you have to spunk most of it on rent/mortgage and the extra cost of living.

Young families not able to afford to rent let alone buy bigger properties to allow them to have kids.. Move the jobs out of Dublin and make it viable for big business to do so and the housing market in Dublin will cool down a good bit but maybe some people don't want that.

Not sure they don't want it.
Everything is centralised under the current economic system. Peripheral areas are ignored. It is the same in France, the UK, Spain, Italy ....
When the system changes the periphery will get some attention.

bigfella san francisco is causing some issues in tech companies in terms of very high earners can no afford to live in "the bay" so this is changing the thought process in terms of offices etc there. It will be interesting to see if that follows through elsewhere.

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 17, 2021, 02:44:12 PM
The pandemic is a game changer up north too with tech companies IMO. Only the untrusting ones, aka fintech, won't allow people the flexibility to do what you're doing - it's what I plan to do too.

Hearing that there's plenty of free office space in Belfast ATM and the possibility of a few companies reducing their office space requirements and going for a hot desk approach.

Quote from: shark on May 17, 2021, 02:39:46 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

There is certainly truth in that.
But we are probably more taking about those who are slightly older and thinking about starting a family.
I work in a tech company. The age profile is young, and for sure the 24 year old Sales Development Rep wants to live in an apartment in the city centre. But the 32 year old who has just got engaged, and would like a 4 bedroom house in which to raise a family, might be seeking something different. They probably won't have any problem getting approval for a €400k+ property. But €400k won't buy much of a 4 bed house in Dublin.
The pandemic has changed things in my world. There is no way I'll be back in the office full time again. It's just not necessary. At the start of the pandemic I lived walking distance from work, as I wouldn't entertain commuting every day. We have moved outside the M50 now, as I know I'll only face that commute at most 3 times a week. More often 1 day, I suspect. I'm seeing this replicated among others in my company. This should help the overall picture a small bit - but I guess every job doesn't have remote capability.

A 400k property would require a combined salary of 100k per annum and a deposit of at least 40k.

Now say that couple are earning 100k a year together and are currently renting their own place in Dublin at 2k a week.

After tax, they might be seeing 70k a year, would that be a fair estimate?

So 24k of their after tax earnings (35%) of what they earn in a year is dead money on rent. Now they have to save up 40k - on their salaries it will probably take about 4 years if they starting from scratch which they likely would be if they are a young couple based in Dublin.

Running a car is expensive, insurance, tax, fuel, services - could be another 3-4k a year, possibly x2 for them. The alternative of public transport to and from work is likely going to be return a similar enough cost.

Utility bills - heating, electricity, bins, broadband, TV. Probably another 4-5k there in a year, possibly more.

Sot that's another 10-15k gone. You're probably now at 40k.

What would groceries be in a year? Would 5k cover a couple for the year?

Now you're at 45k of your 70k wrapped up and that's just on your basic needs.

How many weddings would a young couple have in a year? Anything from 3-4 to 7-8 I'd say. Between stags, hens and weddings probably the guts of 1k each time.

Medical expenses? Health insurance?

Gym memberships, playing sports, holidays, social life, getting a few non-essential items through the year?

Every cent you earn is gone if you want to live an anywhere near decent standard of life if you're stuck in the rental bubble in Dublin.

And that's a couple on decent jobs - just forget it for a single person, don't even go there.

Quote from: johnnycool on May 17, 2021, 02:23:41 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

There's not much point earning big bucks in Dublin when you have to spunk most of it on rent/mortgage and the extra cost of living.

Young families not able to afford to rent let alone buy bigger properties to allow them to have kids.. Move the jobs out of Dublin and make it viable for big business to do so and the housing market in Dublin will cool down a good bit but maybe some people don't want that.

This has always been the way with young people living in cities. When you get middle aged your priorities change but in my mid twenties I wanted to be where all the action regardless of what it cost me.

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 03:42:24 PM

Quote from: shark on May 17, 2021, 02:39:46 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

There is certainly truth in that.
But we are probably more taking about those who are slightly older and thinking about starting a family.
I work in a tech company. The age profile is young, and for sure the 24 year old Sales Development Rep wants to live in an apartment in the city centre. But the 32 year old who has just got engaged, and would like a 4 bedroom house in which to raise a family, might be seeking something different. They probably won't have any problem getting approval for a €400k+ property. But €400k won't buy much of a 4 bed house in Dublin.
The pandemic has changed things in my world. There is no way I'll be back in the office full time again. It's just not necessary. At the start of the pandemic I lived walking distance from work, as I wouldn't entertain commuting every day. We have moved outside the M50 now, as I know I'll only face that commute at most 3 times a week. More often 1 day, I suspect. I'm seeing this replicated among others in my company. This should help the overall picture a small bit - but I guess every job doesn't have remote capability.

A 400k property would require a combined salary of 100k per annum and a deposit of at least 40k.

Now say that couple are earning 100k a year together and are currently renting their own place in Dublin at 2k a week.

After tax, they might be seeing 70k a year, would that be a fair estimate?

So 24k of their after tax earnings (35%) of what they earn in a year is dead money on rent. Now they have to save up 40k - on their salaries it will probably take about 4 years if they starting from scratch which they likely would be if they are a young couple based in Dublin.

Running a car is expensive, insurance, tax, fuel, services - could be another 3-4k a year, possibly x2 for them. The alternative of public transport to and from work is likely going to be return a similar enough cost.

Utility bills - heating, electricity, bins, broadband, TV. Probably another 4-5k there in a year, possibly more.

Sot that's another 10-15k gone. You're probably now at 40k.

What would groceries be in a year? Would 5k cover a couple for the year?

Now you're at 45k of your 70k wrapped up and that's just on your basic needs.

How many weddings would a young couple have in a year? Anything from 3-4 to 7-8 I'd say. Between stags, hens and weddings probably the guts of 1k each time.

Medical expenses? Health insurance?

Gym memberships, playing sports, holidays, social life, getting a few non-essential items through the year?

Every cent you earn is gone if you want to live an anywhere near decent standard of life if you're stuck in the rental bubble in Dublin.

And that's a couple on decent jobs - just forget it for a single person, don't even go there.

All of the above is very true. And I'm aware that plenty of couples don't earn a combined 100k, or anywhere close to it.
It's not easy to save when paying a lot of rent. I know people who moved back with their parents for 2-3 years in some cases, in order to save a deposit. No fun!
I'm also aware that working in tech , one can forget that they are in a bubble that is not representative if wider society. But still has the ability to distort the market. There are many young(-ish) people in Dublin , working in tech, who have made a lot of money in the past few years on stock options. Even after tax it can come to multiples of annual salary. Especially if one accrued these shares prior to IPO. The 30 Coinbase employees in Dublin got a combined $27m (roughly, at IPO price point) which they will be able to sell (after paying 52% tax) in a few months if they wish. This is an extreme example, but plenty out there getting large 5 figure sums, that are no doubt fuelling property purchases and distorting the market.

Quote from: shark on May 17, 2021, 03:53:38 PM

Quote from: Angelo on May 17, 2021, 03:42:24 PM

Quote from: shark on May 17, 2021, 02:39:46 PM

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

There is certainly truth in that.
But we are probably more taking about those who are slightly older and thinking about starting a family.
I work in a tech company. The age profile is young, and for sure the 24 year old Sales Development Rep wants to live in an apartment in the city centre. But the 32 year old who has just got engaged, and would like a 4 bedroom house in which to raise a family, might be seeking something different. They probably won't have any problem getting approval for a €400k+ property. But €400k won't buy much of a 4 bed house in Dublin.
The pandemic has changed things in my world. There is no way I'll be back in the office full time again. It's just not necessary. At the start of the pandemic I lived walking distance from work, as I wouldn't entertain commuting every day. We have moved outside the M50 now, as I know I'll only face that commute at most 3 times a week. More often 1 day, I suspect. I'm seeing this replicated among others in my company. This should help the overall picture a small bit - but I guess every job doesn't have remote capability.

A 400k property would require a combined salary of 100k per annum and a deposit of at least 40k.

Now say that couple are earning 100k a year together and are currently renting their own place in Dublin at 2k a week.

After tax, they might be seeing 70k a year, would that be a fair estimate?

So 24k of their after tax earnings (35%) of what they earn in a year is dead money on rent. Now they have to save up 40k - on their salaries it will probably take about 4 years if they starting from scratch which they likely would be if they are a young couple based in Dublin.

Running a car is expensive, insurance, tax, fuel, services - could be another 3-4k a year, possibly x2 for them. The alternative of public transport to and from work is likely going to be return a similar enough cost.

Utility bills - heating, electricity, bins, broadband, TV. Probably another 4-5k there in a year, possibly more.

Sot that's another 10-15k gone. You're probably now at 40k.

What would groceries be in a year? Would 5k cover a couple for the year?

Now you're at 45k of your 70k wrapped up and that's just on your basic needs.

How many weddings would a young couple have in a year? Anything from 3-4 to 7-8 I'd say. Between stags, hens and weddings probably the guts of 1k each time.

Medical expenses? Health insurance?

Gym memberships, playing sports, holidays, social life, getting a few non-essential items through the year?

Every cent you earn is gone if you want to live an anywhere near decent standard of life if you're stuck in the rental bubble in Dublin.

And that's a couple on decent jobs - just forget it for a single person, don't even go there.

All of the above is very true. And I'm aware that plenty of couples don't earn a combined 100k, or anywhere close to it.
It's not easy to save when paying a lot of rent. I know people who moved back with their parents for 2-3 years in some cases, in order to save a deposit. No fun!
I'm also aware that working in tech , one can forget that they are in a bubble that is not representative if wider society. But still has the ability to distort the market. There are many young(-ish) people in Dublin , working in tech, who have made a lot of money in the past few years on stock options. Even after tax it can come to multiples of annual salary. Especially if one accrued these shares prior to IPO. The 30 Coinbase employees in Dublin got a combined $27m (roughly, at IPO price point) which they will be able to sell (after paying 52% tax) in a few months if they wish. This is an extreme example, but plenty out there getting large 5 figure sums, that are no doubt fuelling property purchases and distorting the market.

And that's the problem isn't it?

People with money are going to invest in property as there is no safer investment at the minute.

The issues is why is govt policy fueling this rather than tackling it? It can't be that hard to draft legislation or increase taxation whereby private investors will not stand to make an absolute fortune through investment in residential property.

I put it up earlier that the mortgage for a 450k home is probably around 1600 pm.
The rental price of a similar property is likely well in excess of 2k.

And that's the issue there - I'd say 70% of couples in Dublin who are currently renting up in Dublin cannot afford to save the deposit up to get a mortgage.
So these investors are coming in and buying property and are then fleecing those people even further with the rental market and gov policy not only enables it but actively encourages it.

Look at the HAP and RAS schemes - look at the annual cost of that to the taxpayer and who benefits - private landlords. FFG policies that consistently damage first time buyers chances but consistently benefit private landlords and vulture funds.

Affordability is a function of income and deposit.

Average earnings last year  were EUR 40,283
6 out of 10 earned less than 36,000

By definition a large chunk of the population do not have the means to buy a house.
This is a political issue.

Quote from: Hound on May 17, 2021, 02:20:28 PM

Quote from: thebigfella on May 17, 2021, 01:54:29 PM
There is more to life than just work, hence why people and especially young people like city living.

Decentalising jobs to mulligar sounds great in theory but in reality young people dont want to live there because there is fcuk all to do. Hence why the big tech companies are based in dublin, because they can attract the best talent not just with the job but the lifestyle.

But if more people were living in Mullingar, there would be more to do!

I spent a long weekend in Athlone last summer, and there was loads to do.

There is a mindset out there though that you need to move to Dublin to be regarded as successful. And the people left behind will be left behind. That won't change overnight.

But I do think working from home over the last 14 months has been a game changer. IDA have been battling for a number of years to persuade new entrants they don't need to be in Dublin.

Although it will be interesting to hear from people who work in Dublin, but who moved back home during the pandemic. Did it make you miss Dublin more? Or did it make you think quality of life could be better if you lived in your home county?

Lived between Belfast and Dublin from 2006 to the present day. Moving back to Tyrone next month and it can't come quick enough! The last 15 months in Belfast, with no garden, have been miserable. The pandemic has really taught me the important things about where you live. That's no disrespect to anyone who has spent their whole lives in an urban environment, but I've just really missed green space and when there are no shops, bars or restaurants, what's the point in living in a city?

Quote from: thewobbler on May 17, 2021, 08:48:51 AM

Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on May 17, 2021, 07:24:43 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 05, 2021, 08:47:32 AM
Minister for Housing Darragh O'Brien said on Tuesday that he did not approve of investment funds purchasing almost entire new estates.

"Do investors have a role here, in housing in Ireland? Yes, they do as they do in most western European countries."

No they f**king don't.

When the price of rent is equivalent to a mortgage, if not more - then they absolutely have no business near domestic property.

If I were in charge, the simple rules would be:
- a house must be owned by an individual.
- no individual can own more than 2 houses (with a 5 exemption year period for inheritance matters).

Simple and to the point.

I'm sure folks will point toward student housing etc - to which I'd respond - so what? There will be enough people willing to invest their "second" house as a student house and rent it to sort that out - without requiring investment companies etc.

I want to agree with you, but the logistics involved in a housing chain (if sale A falls through, then sale B falls too, so sale C can't happen, and sale D has to come off the market) would make your proposal one of extraordinary stress, luck,  and legal intervention.

If you refer to my earlier post about increasing capital gains tax to the point that only rental companies would aspire to own multiple properties, I think it achieves the same goals, but more efficiently

Eh?

I don't see what difference a chain makes to the whole thing.

Chains exist now. They existed in the past and they'll exist in the future.

Having investment vultures snap up houses may make chains shorter - but that is an exceptionally poor reason for supporting their continued existence.

The problem is that from the midway point of a chain up, there is a high likelihood that the person involved would have a second investment property. Anyone in that situation, regardless of available capital, is stuck from purchasing until they've sold up.

Currently chains break because buyers get cold feet, and because buyers can't raise the capital. But they don't break because a person who really wants a house and can afford it all ends up, is landlocked.

I see a certain TD has no problem getting "on the housing ladder". And near the top of it too.

Houses are like shares.
Ni uasal agus iseal ach thuas seal agus thios seal.

The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

The housing market always seems to he on the precipice of an exploding bubble (UK) & permanently in one in the ROI. It's a house of cards that always seems to just about remain upright. The inflationary explosion that is coming post lock isn't going to help.

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

Using shop closers as a measurement for the economy is useless. Retail is closing as ppl are changing their habits. People should thank Covid for fast forwarding its demise. Retail was dead 5 years ago, people just refused to believe it.
There are also lots of opportunities in the hospitality sector that these employees can transfer into. So I can't see much of an issue. Locally all hospitality businesses are hiring, and in one case they said if they can't get staff they won't be able to open. If you don't have a job at the minute you simply don't want one.

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

Using shop closers as a measurement for the economy is useless. Retail is closing as ppl are changing their habits. People should thank Covid for fast forwarding its demise. Retail was dead 5 years ago, people just refused to believe it.
There are also lots of opportunities in the hospitality sector that these employees can transfer into. So I can't see much of an issue. Locally all hospitality businesses are hiring, and in one case they said if they can't get staff they won't be able to open. If you don't have a job at the minute you simply don't want one.

I disagree. Retail is an important barometer of overall demand.
In the UK, Debenhams collapsed. Boohoo which is internet only bought the brand and website only. 10,000 jobs were lost.
What counts is demand. If 100 retail jobs are replaced by 20 online jobs at lower pay, demand falls. If this is repeated across the economy, house prices are not sustainable .
Too many indicators are saying the same thing.

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 08:10:13 PM

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

Using shop closers as a measurement for the economy is useless. Retail is closing as ppl are changing their habits. People should thank Covid for fast forwarding its demise. Retail was dead 5 years ago, people just refused to believe it.
There are also lots of opportunities in the hospitality sector that these employees can transfer into. So I can't see much of an issue. Locally all hospitality businesses are hiring, and in one case they said if they can't get staff they won't be able to open. If you don't have a job at the minute you simply don't want one.

I disagree. Retail is an important barometer of overall demand.
In the UK, Debenhams collapsed. Boohoo which is internet only bought the brand and website only. 10,000 jobs were lost.
What counts is demand. If 100 retail jobs are replaced by 20 online jobs at lower pay, demand falls. If this is repeated across the economy, house prices are not sustainable .
Too many indicators are saying the same thing.

High street retail was already dead Covid or no Covid. It'll have minimal effect on house prices.

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 09:11:02 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 08:10:13 PM

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

Using shop closers as a measurement for the economy is useless. Retail is closing as ppl are changing their habits. People should thank Covid for fast forwarding its demise. Retail was dead 5 years ago, people just refused to believe it.
There are also lots of opportunities in the hospitality sector that these employees can transfer into. So I can't see much of an issue. Locally all hospitality businesses are hiring, and in one case they said if they can't get staff they won't be able to open. If you don't have a job at the minute you simply don't want one.

I disagree. Retail is an important barometer of overall demand.
In the UK, Debenhams collapsed. Boohoo which is internet only bought the brand and website only. 10,000 jobs were lost.
What counts is demand. If 100 retail jobs are replaced by 20 online jobs at lower pay, demand falls. If this is repeated across the economy, house prices are not sustainable .
Too many indicators are saying the same thing.

High street retail was already dead Covid or no Covid. It'll have minimal effect on house prices.

On its own it won't. But all the jobs lost over a year, the fact that Central Banks can't restore equilibrum, Brexit, the fact that the credit transmission mechanism is broken- it's all pointing in one direction. There is going to be another housing crash. Most models are backward looking. That doesn't help.   

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 09:43:25 PM

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 09:11:02 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 08:10:13 PM

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

Using shop closers as a measurement for the economy is useless. Retail is closing as ppl are changing their habits. People should thank Covid for fast forwarding its demise. Retail was dead 5 years ago, people just refused to believe it.
There are also lots of opportunities in the hospitality sector that these employees can transfer into. So I can't see much of an issue. Locally all hospitality businesses are hiring, and in one case they said if they can't get staff they won't be able to open. If you don't have a job at the minute you simply don't want one.

I disagree. Retail is an important barometer of overall demand.
In the UK, Debenhams collapsed. Boohoo which is internet only bought the brand and website only. 10,000 jobs were lost.
What counts is demand. If 100 retail jobs are replaced by 20 online jobs at lower pay, demand falls. If this is repeated across the economy, house prices are not sustainable .
Too many indicators are saying the same thing.

High street retail was already dead Covid or no Covid. It'll have minimal effect on house prices.

On its own it won't. But all the jobs lost over a year, the fact that Central Banks can't restore equilibrum, Brexit, the fact that the credit transmission mechanism is broken- it's all pointing in one direction. There is going to be another housing crash. Most models are backward looking. That doesn't help.

There's heaps of jobs. Anyone without one doesn't want one.

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 10:23:09 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 09:43:25 PM

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 09:11:02 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 08:10:13 PM

Quote from: trailer on May 18, 2021, 04:42:28 PM

Quote from: seafoid on May 18, 2021, 12:31:23 PM
The real economy is weaker than people think . House prices can fall as well as rise

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/as-yet-another-shop-closes-can-grafton-street-survive-1.4566666

On Dublin's Grafton Street, a host of shops, formerly occupied by the likes of Tommy Hilfiger, Fitzpatricks, Ecco, Urban Decay, Pamela Scott, Topman, Monsoon and Cath Kidston, will remain closed. In fact, almost one in five shops on the street won't be reopening today.

And they may not be the only ones.

"I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of [other] shops don't reopen," says Eoin Feeney, deputy managing director and head of retail at BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland.
Hugo Boss agreed a 24 per cent reduction on its rent when it agreed a new 10-year lease at 67/68 Grafton Street in January of this year, equating to €1,177 per square metre, while Tommy Hilfiger recently agreed to pay a year's rent just to exercise its 15-year break option early. If and when a replacement is found for the unit, it's unlikely to be at previous levels.

Using shop closers as a measurement for the economy is useless. Retail is closing as ppl are changing their habits. People should thank Covid for fast forwarding its demise. Retail was dead 5 years ago, people just refused to believe it.
There are also lots of opportunities in the hospitality sector that these employees can transfer into. So I can't see much of an issue. Locally all hospitality businesses are hiring, and in one case they said if they can't get staff they won't be able to open. If you don't have a job at the minute you simply don't want one.

I disagree. Retail is an important barometer of overall demand.
In the UK, Debenhams collapsed. Boohoo which is internet only bought the brand and website only. 10,000 jobs were lost.
What counts is demand. If 100 retail jobs are replaced by 20 online jobs at lower pay, demand falls. If this is repeated across the economy, house prices are not sustainable .
Too many indicators are saying the same thing.

High street retail was already dead Covid or no Covid. It'll have minimal effect on house prices.

On its own it won't. But all the jobs lost over a year, the fact that Central Banks can't restore equilibrum, Brexit, the fact that the credit transmission mechanism is broken- it's all pointing in one direction. There is going to be another housing crash. Most models are backward looking. That doesn't help.

There's heaps of jobs. Anyone without one doesn't want one.

i concur, there's nothing to stop people having 2 or 3 jobs if they want, there are plenty going, it means you have to work though  ;)

Quote from: thewobbler on May 18, 2021, 07:39:05 AM
The problem is that from the midway point of a chain up, there is a high likelihood that the person involved would have a second investment property. Anyone in that situation, regardless of available capital, is stuck from purchasing until they've sold up.

Which then favours sellers taking offers from buyers who aren't locked.

Even if that offer isn't the highest.

Which also helps keep a lid on prices.

Again, not seeing the problem.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/stamp-duty-hike-of-10-for-bulk-buyers-of-houses-set-to-be-approved-by-d%C3%A1il-1.4568821


The Government has moved to clamp down on bulk-buying of new homes with an increased stamp duty of 10 per cent on certain multiple house purchases set to be approved by the Dáil today.
Under measures agreed by the Cabinet on Tuesday night, the higher stamp duty rate will apply to the purchasing of more than 10 houses within a 12-month period.

Meanwhile, the Dáil on Tuesday night unexpectedly passed a Sinn Féin motion calling for affordable housing to be delivered at a maximum price of €230,000 in Dublin and less outside the capital and with rental costs at between €700 and €900 per month in the capital.

The lifting of the eviction ban very hot topic these days. An awful lot of political point scoring going on. Leo getting a lot of grief and I'm not a great fan but he is talking a lot of sense. Real issue is the chronic shortage of housing units although his party has to take the majority of the responsibility for this.

But the fact that a lot of his critics are only interested in gaining political capital from the situation wouldn't fill me with much hope that they have any real proper grasp on the solutions or even care half as much as they're letting on.

I don't get the outrage. If you're not paying your rent, out to f**k.

Housing is a huge problem in the states too.

New York are trying to do something about it by forcing towns, especially in the areas surrounding NYC, to increase housing density. But of course that becomes a huge political issue for the NIMBYs who have the financial resources to tie everything up in court.

Its a big problem in upstate NY too. Was just reading about Kingston, which is 100 miles up the Hudson river at the east end of the Catskills and saw prices go through the roof when everyone wanted a country home during Covid. They're trying to bring in rent ceilings so that people who have lived there for decades won't have to up and leave because their town has suddenly turned into an upstate Brooklyn with corresponding doubling of rents. And the Catskill/Hudson valley region has also seen a big reduction in the availability of housing for locals due to Air BnB and VRBO catering to the weekend city people.

Its a tough issue.

Some of the ski towns and national park gateway towns out west have almost no affordable housing for their service employees. Most end up commuting hours each day to do low wage work in towns like Aspen and Jackson Hole.

Quote from: J70 on March 09, 2023, 08:19:08 PM
Housing is a huge problem in the states too.

New York are trying to do something about it by forcing towns, especially in the areas surrounding NYC, to increase housing density. But of course that becomes a huge political issue for the NIMBYs who have the financial resources to tie everything up in court.

Its a big problem in upstate NY too. Was just reading about Kingston, which is 100 miles up the Hudson river at the east end of the Catskills and saw prices go through the roof when everyone wanted a country home during Covid. They're trying to bring in rent ceilings so that people who have lived there for decades won't have to up and leave because their town has suddenly turned into an upstate Brooklyn with corresponding doubling of rents. And the Catskill/Hudson valley region has also seen a big reduction in the availability of housing for locals due to Air BnB and VRBO catering to the weekend city people.

Its a tough issue.

Some of the ski towns and national park gateway towns out west have almost no affordable housing for their service employees. Most end up commuting hours each day to do low wage work in towns like Aspen and Jackson Hole.

I was in Hudson NY a few weeks ago

What a transformation. $1M + homes, a boutique hotel, Brooklyn transplants, chic boutiques

About five years ago, before things went nuts, we were (wishfully) looking at someday getting a place around the Catskills, but that ship has sailed. I can only imagine what it must be like for the less well off people who are from those areas.

Adirondacks will be next. Even though it's a five hour drive from NYC on a good day!

I like Hudson and Rhineback and those towns east of the river, but the Rondout Valley west of Kingston and New Paltz is beautiful too. Reminds me a bit of Ireland.

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 09, 2023, 07:29:42 PM
I don't get the outrage. If you're not paying your rent, out to f**k.

Out to live on the street is it? Did you read your history lad

Quote from: Itchy on March 09, 2023, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 09, 2023, 07:29:42 PM
I don't get the outrage. If you're not paying your rent, out to f**k.

Out to live on the street is it? Did you read your history lad

I really really hope this isn't an 1800s Ireland reference. It couldn't be.

Was diving yesterday and tuned into Newstalk about this.

The number of messages sent in along the lines of "I'm a landlord and now I can't pay the mortgage, won't someone think of me?", was laughable.

If your financial planning  involves shafting others from enjoying the basic human right of affordable shelter, well then f**k you. You deserve the hardest of times. And then some.

Quote from: thewobbler on March 09, 2023, 10:19:53 PM
Was diving yesterday and tuned into Newstalk about this.

The number of messages sent in along the lines of "I'm a landlord and now I can't pay the mortgage, won't someone think of me?", was laughable.

If your financial planning  involves shafting others from enjoying the basic human right of affordable shelter, well then f**k you. You deserve the hardest of times. And then some.

Do all landlords shaft people? Has to be a balance. f**k the scroungers looking to live for free.

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 09, 2023, 10:24:45 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on March 09, 2023, 10:19:53 PM
Was diving yesterday and tuned into Newstalk about this.

The number of messages sent in along the lines of "I'm a landlord and now I can't pay the mortgage, won't someone think of me?", was laughable.

If your financial planning  involves shafting others from enjoying the basic human right of affordable shelter, well then f**k you. You deserve the hardest of times. And then some.

Do all landlords shaft people? Has to be a balance. f**k the scroungers looking to live for free.

How many pay packets are you from losing your home?

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 09, 2023, 10:24:45 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on March 09, 2023, 10:19:53 PM
Was diving yesterday and tuned into Newstalk about this.

The number of messages sent in along the lines of "I'm a landlord and now I can't pay the mortgage, won't someone think of me?", was laughable.

If your financial planning  involves shafting others from enjoying the basic human right of affordable shelter, well then f**k you. You deserve the hardest of times. And then some.

Do all landlords shaft people? Has to be a balance. f**k the scroungers looking to live for free.

You are a classy individual. Not everyone is a scrounger, rent prices are out of control. People spending all their money in it and landlords are putting rent up. We are talking about families on the street. You'd have to be a heartless w**ker to think like you do

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 09, 2023, 10:24:45 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on March 09, 2023, 10:19:53 PM
Was diving yesterday and tuned into Newstalk about this.

The number of messages sent in along the lines of "I'm a landlord and now I can't pay the mortgage, won't someone think of me?", was laughable.

If your financial planning  involves shafting others from enjoying the basic human right of affordable shelter, well then f**k you. You deserve the hardest of times. And then some.

Do all landlords shaft people? Has to be a balance. f**k the scroungers looking to live for free.

Every property that's purchased with the sole intention of financial gain, contributes to making housing less affordable. Every last one.

That governments across the world have facilitated greedy, callous c***ts, and revolting financial institutions in making money from an utterly skill-less and morally repugnant pursuit, is the greatest scandal in the history of capitalism and will ultimately be its downfall.

——

Imagine water distribution could be controlled in such a way that a small group of people got extraordinarily wealthy from it, a sizeable chunk of society profited from it, and price gouging meant half of society had to work 20-30 hours a week just to get enough to stay alive. But... quit work and the government gives you it for more or less free.

Does that sound like a scandal?

It does. Of course it does.

Shelter is also a basic human need.

But nowadays it's also a f**king commodity.

——

I don't want to live in America. f**k America and its American ways.

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 09, 2023, 10:24:45 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on March 09, 2023, 10:19:53 PM
Was diving yesterday and tuned into Newstalk about this.

The number of messages sent in along the lines of "I'm a landlord and now I can't pay the mortgage, won't someone think of me?", was laughable.

If your financial planning  involves shafting others from enjoying the basic human right of affordable shelter, well then f**k you. You deserve the hardest of times. And then some.

Do all landlords shaft people? Has to be a balance. f**k the scroungers looking to live for free.

are landlords who take half of people's salaries (and in some cases more) not scroungers looking to live for free? they're literally living off other people's hard earned money and then whinging that they're being "demonised".

A lot of rhetoric going on here. There has to be a rental market and landlords provide that service. There also needs to be social housing for people who fall into hard times, but that is the responsibility of the government, period. Private individuals cannot be expected to carry the can where government have failed. If a private landlord needs to get out of the market for whatever reason, they have to be allowed.

Too many politicians trying to score points on this issue and playing to the mob to sound good, not caring one bit if it makes things worse. And in fact a lot of the meddling they cheer-leaded has done just that. First they spouted that getting landlords out and more private home ownership would leave us all in utopia. Now it's force landlords to stay in. Talking out of both sides of their mouths!

Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter one bit to homelessness whether houses are rented or privately owned if the number of housing units stays the same. In fact the rental market makes more efficient use of space and has higher occupancy i.e less homelessness. So landlords are very much needed in a healthy housing market. But there needs to be a dramatic increase in supply also of all different types of accommodation. And that also means smaller units and co-living developments for those that are happy to stay foot loose and fancy free. Unfortunately can't see the situation improve any time soon though. Pricks in government/opposition far rather go on a crusade and win some votes rather than risk making hard decisions and putting their heads above the parapet. 

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 09, 2023, 11:41:35 PM
A lot of rhetoric going on here. There has to be a rental market and landlords provide that service. There also needs to be social housing for people who fall into hard times, but that is the responsibility of the government, period. Private individuals cannot be expected to carry the can where government have failed. If a private landlord needs to get out of the market for whatever reason, they have to be allowed.

Too many politicians trying to score points on this issue and playing to the mob to sound good, not caring one bit if it makes things worse. And in fact a lot of the meddling they cheer-leaded has done just that. First they spouted that getting landlords out and more private home ownership would leave us all in utopia. Now it's force landlords to stay in. Talking out of both sides of their mouths!

Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter one bit to homelessness whether houses are rented or privately owned if the number of housing units stays the same. In fact the rental market makes more efficient use of space and has higher occupancy i.e less homelessness. So landlords are very much needed in a healthy housing market. But there needs to be a dramatic increase in supply also of all different types of accommodation. And that also means smaller units and co-living developments for those that are happy to stay foot loose and fancy free. Unfortunately can't see the situation improve any time soon though. Pricks in government/opposition far rather go on a crusade and win some votes rather than risk making hard decisions and putting their heads above the parapet.

Good post

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 09, 2023, 11:41:35 PM
A lot of rhetoric going on here. There has to be a rental market and landlords provide that service. There also needs to be social housing for people who fall into hard times, but that is the responsibility of the government, period. Private individuals cannot be expected to carry the can where government have failed. If a private landlord needs to get out of the market for whatever reason, they have to be allowed.

Too many politicians trying to score points on this issue and playing to the mob to sound good, not caring one bit if it makes things worse. And in fact a lot of the meddling they cheer-leaded has done just that. First they spouted that getting landlords out and more private home ownership would leave us all in utopia. Now it's force landlords to stay in. Talking out of both sides of their mouths!

Fact of the matter is it doesn't matter one bit to homelessness whether houses are rented or privately owned if the number of housing units stays the same. In fact the rental market makes more efficient use of space and has higher occupancy i.e less homelessness. So landlords are very much needed in a healthy housing market. But there needs to be a dramatic increase in supply also of all different types of accommodation. And that also means smaller units and co-living developments for those that are happy to stay foot loose and fancy free. Unfortunately can't see the situation improve any time soon though. Pricks in government/opposition far rather go on a crusade and win some votes rather than risk making hard decisions and putting their heads above the parapet.

a lot of traditional small private landlords have left the market due to structural changes.

Good post indeed.
There aren't enough of houses for the increased population.
"We" aren't building enough new ones, whether private, affordable, subsidised or social.
How many people can afford the prices being asked for new private  houses in Greater Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway?
In Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford and Westneath there are 6 or 7 housing developments. At least we natives have a good chance of building once off rural houses but no hope for remote workers etc  hoping to move to the region.
For 30 years successive Governments let the private landlord sector solve the social housing situation through HAP etc.
Private renting was traditionally a temporary thing for young people who didn't want to stay with mammy or daddy or were working away from home.

PS The Political parties now shouting the loudest have been objecting to housing developments jumping in every nimby populist platform.

PPS- our 2 main Christian Churches must have hundreds of unused or underused buildings all over the Country.
How about following their founder's instructions by e.g leasing those buildings free to the State for say 10 or 20 years?

 https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Marian Finnegan of Sherry FitzGerald estate agents says there's no evidence of landlords leaving the market because of the eviction ban; rather, small owners have been selling up for a decade due to burdensome taxes and regulations. Moreover, she suggests that the Government squandered the opportunity presented by the moratorium to halt the "exodus" of such landlords: "Literally nothing was done until the last minute of the last month."

Quote from: Rossfan on March 10, 2023, 09:47:44 AM
Good post indeed.
There aren't enough of houses for the increased population.
"We" aren't building enough new ones, whether private, affordable, subsidised or social.
How many people can afford the prices being asked for new private  houses in Greater Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway?
In Sligo, Leitrim, Roscommon, Longford and Westneath there are 6 or 7 housing developments. At least we natives have a good chance of building once off rural houses but no hope for remote workers etc  hoping to move to the region.
For 30 years successive Governments let the private landlord sector solve the social housing situation through HAP etc.
Private renting was traditionally a temporary thing for young people who didn't want to stay with mammy ir daddy ir were working away from home.

PS The Political parties now shouting the loudest gave been objecting to housing developments jumping in every nimby populist platform.

PPS- our 2 main Christian Churches must have hundreds of unused or underused buildings all over the Country.
How about following their founder's instructions by e.g leasing those buildings free to the State for say 10 or 20 years?

Social housing is effectively banned by the rules of neoliberalism. If you drive through Connacht you can see social housing that was built in the 1930s but none that was built in the last 30 years when there was a lot more money. the Central Banks created another asset bubble after the collapse of 2009 so house prices are again out of reach of a lot of citizens. It's a mess.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Kenny executes an effective one-two when he follows this with housing analyst Lorcan Sirr's methodical dissection of Government housing policy. Sirr quickly identifies the nub of the matter. "The core of the problem is the use of the private rental sector for social housing," he says, adding there are 60,000 such households. As for the Government's aim of restoring confidence with private landlords, Sirr points out that sector's rent is taxed as income, and large funds pay "almost zero" tax on rents.

Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2023, 09:55:07 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Marian Finnegan of Sherry FitzGerald estate agents says there's no evidence of landlords leaving the market because of the eviction ban; rather, small owners have been selling up for a decade due to burdensome taxes and regulations. Moreover, she suggests that the Government squandered the opportunity presented by the moratorium to halt the "exodus" of such landlords: "Literally nothing was done until the last minute of the last month."

It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 02:25:45 PM
It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

There is considerable publicity about the small number of properties available, but this partly reflects that people make private arrangements and never advertise the property. If you did go away for a year you might have someone in your house, but you'd never advertise it.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 02:25:45 PM

Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2023, 09:55:07 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Marian Finnegan of Sherry FitzGerald estate agents says there's no evidence of landlords leaving the market because of the eviction ban; rather, small owners have been selling up for a decade due to burdensome taxes and regulations. Moreover, she suggests that the Government squandered the opportunity presented by the moratorium to halt the "exodus" of such landlords: "Literally nothing was done until the last minute of the last month."

It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

If they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place.

Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2023, 04:01:34 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 02:25:45 PM
It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

There is considerable publicity about the small number of properties available, but this partly reflects that people make private arrangements and never advertise the property. If you did go away for a year you might have someone in your house, but you'd never advertise it.

I look on boards.ie now and again when I'm bored. Think I read a thread on their accommodation section on this exact same scenario last year. The couple were just home, their "mates" weren't such great mates after all. In their defence I seem to remember they couldn't find alternative arrangements and didn't want to be homeless so long and short, there was a big fall out, renting couple stayed put and their former homeowner friends were homeless and living on another mates couch.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:18:42 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 02:25:45 PM

Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2023, 09:55:07 AM
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio/2023/03/10/im-breaking-morning-irelands-emotional-interview-gets-to-the-heart-of-housing-crisis/

Marian Finnegan of Sherry FitzGerald estate agents says there's no evidence of landlords leaving the market because of the eviction ban; rather, small owners have been selling up for a decade due to burdensome taxes and regulations. Moreover, she suggests that the Government squandered the opportunity presented by the moratorium to halt the "exodus" of such landlords: "Literally nothing was done until the last minute of the last month."

It's a complex issue but the eviction ban is a huge deal. It's potentially catastrophic to a small landlord say with 2 mortgages (one family home , one rental) who needs the rent to service them. Cannot blame them if they sell up first chance they get for some control and peace of mind. Temporary landlords too would be crazy to enter the rental market. Say you moved abroad for a year or two for work. Renting out your house now a huge risk and could leave you homeless when you come home.

If they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place.

Hence as I said, why they're now leaving in their droves. The goal posts have been moved.

And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:42:16 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:53:39 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:42:16 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

People borrow all the time on good faith. Business people borrow on the strength of their company and projected revenues. If it goes tits up there's no alternative affordability rules. People with jobs borrow on the strength of their future earning potential. If they lose job or get sick and can't pay the mortgage there's no alternative affordability rules. The house goes.
Renting property is no different. People borrow to get into the game or expand their business. Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:53:39 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:42:16 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

People borrow all the time on good faith. Business people borrow on the strength of their company and projected revenues. If it goes tits up there's no alternative affordability rules. People with jobs borrow on the strength of their future earning potential. If they lose job or get sick and can't pay the mortgage there's no alternative affordability rules. The house goes.
Renting property is no different. People borrow to get into the game or expand their business. Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:53:39 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:42:16 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

People borrow all the time on good faith. Business people borrow on the strength of their company and projected revenues. If it goes tits up there's no alternative affordability rules. People with jobs borrow on the strength of their future earning potential. If they lose job or get sick and can't pay the mortgage there's no alternative affordability rules. The house goes.
Renting property is no different. People borrow to get into the game or expand their business. Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

I find it hard to believe theres any landlord that cant find a tenant. Are you trying to say if the tenants dont bother paying rent then it's just tough shit for the land lord?

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 10, 2023, 05:58:19 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 05:50:38 PM
Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

I find it hard to believe theres any landlord that cant find a tenant. Are you trying to say if the tenants dont bother paying rent then it's just tough shit for the land lord?

No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

If there are 60,000 people who in other times would be in social housing now housed in the private sector and inflation is at 8% and the 60,000 people are mostly low paid, what is most likely to happen ?

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM
No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

Renting property is a business, you have to cover your costs. If there was a general inability to cover costs then the house would not have been rented out in the first place and so the tenants would never have had a house.

The tenants from the social housing section are the poorest. House prices are the highest in at least 13 years. Plus you have inflation.
And pay rises are limited.
The whole system is a joke. We need to get house prices down to fix this.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 10, 2023, 05:58:19 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 05:50:38 PM
Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

I find it hard to believe theres any landlord that cant find a tenant. Are you trying to say if the tenants dont bother paying rent then it's just tough shit for the land lord?

No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2023, 07:23:41 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM
No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

Renting property is a business, you have to cover your costs. If there was a general inability to cover costs then the house would not have been rented out in the first place and so the tenants would never have had a house.

This is nonsense.

House prices, and therefore mortgages, and therefore rent, are not determined by the usual rules of supply and demand. These figures are determined by speculation levels and investment levels.

The problem is that all that speculation, all that investment, has reached a point whereby housing of any shape or form is an unaffordable proposition for a hefty and growing percentage of the population. Mr "quick buck" who took on a property or two at maximum LtV, and needing rent to always cover his mortgage is, clean and simple, fucked. He can't afford to do anything other than increase the rent, and nobody in his target market can afford to pay his new mortgage rate for him.

So we now in a situation where people are now both metaphorically and physically sleeping outside vacant properties.

f**k the landlords. f**k the greedy, skill less c***ts.

Why don't you try howling at the moon?

Is the problem not that landlords are charging way and above the mortgage on the property? That would just be pure greed.

Quote from: thewobbler on March 10, 2023, 09:14:59 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2023, 07:23:41 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM
No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

Renting property is a business, you have to cover your costs. If there was a general inability to cover costs then the house would not have been rented out in the first place and so the tenants would never have had a house.

This is nonsense.

House prices, and therefore mortgages, and therefore rent, are not determined by the usual rules of supply and demand. These figures are determined by speculation levels and investment levels.

The problem is that all that speculation, all that investment, has reached a point whereby housing of any shape or form is an unaffordable proposition for a hefty and growing percentage of the population. Mr "quick buck" who took on a property or two at maximum LtV, and needing rent to always cover his mortgage is, clean and simple, fucked. He can't afford to do anything other than increase the rent, and nobody in his target market can afford to pay his new mortgage rate for him.

So we now in a situation where people are now both metaphorically and physically sleeping outside vacant properties.

f**k the landlords. f**k the greedy, skill less c***ts.

I dont understand this statement in bold. Speculation and investment levels are more complicated ways of saying demand.

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:15:02 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on March 10, 2023, 09:14:59 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2023, 07:23:41 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM
No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

Renting property is a business, you have to cover your costs. If there was a general inability to cover costs then the house would not have been rented out in the first place and so the tenants would never have had a house.

This is nonsense.

House prices, and therefore mortgages, and therefore rent, are not determined by the usual rules of supply and demand. These figures are determined by speculation levels and investment levels.

The problem is that all that speculation, all that investment, has reached a point whereby housing of any shape or form is an unaffordable proposition for a hefty and growing percentage of the population. Mr "quick buck" who took on a property or two at maximum LtV, and needing rent to always cover his mortgage is, clean and simple, fucked. He can't afford to do anything other than increase the rent, and nobody in his target market can afford to pay his new mortgage rate for him.

So we now in a situation where people are now both metaphorically and physically sleeping outside vacant properties.

f**k the landlords. f**k the greedy, skill less c***ts.

I dont understand this statement in bold. Speculation and investment levels are more complicated ways of saying demand.

Supply and demand is generally associated with needs and wants. No man needs more than 1 car, though he might want a few more. No harm done. No man needs a year's supply of groceries on tap at all times, though he might want to overstock for things he enjoys. No harm done. No man needs more than 10 pairs of trousers. Though m a wardrobe full of them affects nobody.

No man needs more than 1 house. Even if he wanted 2, no real harm. But speculation and investment potential leads them to buying more than they need. It means that property operates in a different sphere.

Which would be okay if it was flowers. Or ornaments. Or paintings. 

But we're dealing with a basic human need here.

f**k the greedy skill less c***ts who drive this stain on society.

I'm away to howl at the moon.

You can redefine supply and demand all you like, but to say that house prices are not determined by s&d is wrong.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 05:04:18 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:53:39 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:42:16 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 04:36:05 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 04:28:29 PM
And the notion of having tenants and not collecting rent. That's just a ridiculous scenario to be advocating.

Never suggested that at all. Don't know where you got that idiotic idea from.

Glad you clarified you think it's idiotic to be paying a mortgage on a rental property and not collecting rent.

Of course it's idiotic, equally as idiotic as taking on a mortgage without the ability to repay it independently of rental income. Basic affordability rules.

People borrow all the time on good faith. Business people borrow on the strength of their company and projected revenues. If it goes tits up there's no alternative affordability rules. People with jobs borrow on the strength of their future earning potential. If they lose job or get sick and can't pay the mortgage there's no alternative affordability rules. The house goes.
Renting property is no different. People borrow to get into the game or expand their business. Expecting a return on a highly valuable asset like a house is hardly idiotic.

Expecting it to carry no risk is.

The risk is this instance is a landlord cannot get tenants to pay their rental mortgage. Tough shit, that's the risk they took when agreeing a buy to let mortgage.

Again, if you can't afford a rental property without income from tenants you shouldn't have taken it on.

No one mentioned no risk and no landlord expects no risk. Perfectly acceptable business practice to borrow money on the strength of ROI for partial repayment. You could say the same thing about not taking on a mortgage if you can't repay if you lose your job. But that makes no practical sense. If you were so inherently wealthy not to require a job, or not to need rent, there'd be no need for the mortgage in the first place.

It's about controllable risk and stress test. Whereas before landlords accepted the risk and could afford to carry the can from loss of a couple of months rent or repair job after bad tenants, now there is no control whatsoever and they could be left for an indeterminate length of time (years if you listen to some hardliners) with no rent or recourse. And once the buffer money runs out i.e stress test, their family home could them come under risk. That's the unacceptable risk, a risk they didn't agree to when taking the mortgage, that has landlords wanting out. 

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
You can redefine supply and demand all you like, but to say that house prices are not determined by s&d is wrong.

Correct CK Redhand. Of course it's S&D that controls price. Demand outstrips supply at the moment considerably.

And market rent is a function of house price i.e demand. I'd imagine it's 7/8% yield (gross) at the moment.

Quote from: east down gael on March 10, 2023, 09:41:18 PM
Is the problem not that landlords are charging way and above the mortgage on the property? That would just be pure greed.

That's a very hard question to answer East Down Gael as every situation is different. Market rent is a function of house price, I'd guess about 7/8% gross. You might expect to clear 3% net or slightly better so might look over the mortgage to tenant but not to landlord. But that's simplistic as some of the mortgages could be years old and yield on initial investment much higher. Then again negative equity could have been in play for a very long time in this scenario so landlord might be still recovering costs.

You could argue RPZs have had the reverse effect of what they were designed to do. It's made a lot of landlords more aware of market rent and feel they must increase rent to the maximum every year. This is important for their exit strategy if they need to sell up and get out of the business as if they're charging too low a rent it will hamstring the new buyer to that rent if they are landlords. So could rule out a lot of potential buyers. Then again there are plenty of decent landlords in it for the long haul that are happy to keep rents low for long term dependable tenants. You'd imagine under these conditions the mortgage on property would have to be minimal.

But Leo is right, the haemorrhaging of small landlords from the market is bad news for renters. Even if they are replaced it's still bad as any new landlords to the market will absolutely be looking at market rent as a minimum starting point. So if all the hurlers on the ditch get their way, and you think things are bad now, an even bigger cluster f**k impending.

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
You can redefine supply and demand all you like, but to say that house prices are not determined by s&d is wrong.

Prices are determined by the money supply and the level of interest rates. The lower the rates the higher the price.
annual rent is a percentage of the price.

There are 2 economies in the south. The multinational/financial economy grows strongly and the domestic economy doesn't.
The 2 meet in the housing market.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2023/03/11/pat-leahy-ending-eviction-ban-could-be-this-governments-worst-mistake/
There is a strong chance that lifting the moratorium on evictions this week could turn out to be one of the most serious mistakes this Government makes.

While there is clearly a strong argument to end the ban in order to keep as many landlords as possible in the market, it is politically reckless not to have either prepared the ground beforehand, or else to announce the end of the ban in three months' time and give that time and space to put in the place the mitigations and protections for tenants that the Government hastily announced this week.

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
You can redefine supply and demand all you like, but to say that house prices are not determined by s&d is wrong.

S&D is too simple to explain what is happening. Speculation is like leverage. It drives up house prices beyond the level of demand from the real economy.
This drives up rent. If S&D explained everything, rents would not be 2000 Euro.

It's on the same side as demand but should be separate. How can ordinary people afford 2000 per month ?

20 mins discussion on this on TLLS last night.

A woman with 3 young chilsren spoke about her situation.

While a Senator from FF or FG were on the sofa with a lecturer (I think) who has studied the housing situation in Ireland and compiled reports on it.

He said lifting the ban was definately going to make things worse.  The politician seemed, to me, was just trying to get through the discussion.

The lad raised a really good point though. We're in a housing crisis this past 10+ years  but the governments hasn't dealt with it like a crisis should be dealt with i.e. the Covid crisis. The government threw everything at that e.g. money and resources but this isn't happening with the housing situation unfortunately.

We need to build more houses. It really is that simple. But this isn't just an Irish or Dublin problem, same issue exists in almost every large city in the world. Perth, Sydney, NYC, London are all struggling.
Opposition to new developments needs to stop as well ... cough, cough Sinn Fein.

Quote from: trailer on March 11, 2023, 08:52:13 AM
We need to build more houses. It really is that simple. But this isn't just an Irish or Dublin problem, same issue exists in almost every large city in the world. Perth, Sydney, NYC, London are all struggling.
Opposition to new developments needs to stop as well ... cough, cough Sinn Fein.

20000 people have unpayable mortgages from the last property bubble.
Building more houses only makes sense if prices come down.
the private sector can't be the solution for social housing.

Quote from: seafoid on March 11, 2023, 03:06:00 AM

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
You can redefine supply and demand all you like, but to say that house prices are not determined by s&d is wrong.

Prices are determined by the money supply and the level of interest rates. The lower the rates the higher the price.
annual rent is a percentage of the price.

There are 2 economies in the south. The multinational/financial economy grows strongly and the domestic economy doesn't.
The 2 meet in the housing market.

In the US, higher rates ARE leading to price drops in many markets.

Unfortunately, these drops are coming in already hugely inflated markets resulting from the Covid bubble, and the prices are still unaffordable. And the knock-on affect is that many people who would otherwise sell and move are staying put as they'd rather their current house and low interest mortgage than a move to a larger new house with a much higher interest-related monthly payment. Which means supply is shrinking. Which then keeps prices from contracting too much. Which is leaving a lot of people locked out of the market and stuck with high rents.

Quote from: seafoid on March 11, 2023, 07:31:46 AM

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:52:33 PM
You can redefine supply and demand all you like, but to say that house prices are not determined by s&d is wrong.

S&D is too simple to explain what is happening. Speculation is like leverage. It drives up house prices beyond the level of demand from the real economy.
This drives up rent. If S&D explained everything, rents would not be 2000 Euro.

It's on the same side as demand but should be separate. How can ordinary people afford 2000 per month ?

Things can be made as simple or complicated as anyone likes but demand drives all when it all boils down.

Of course there are things that make demand achievable or a pipe dream for the masses. In the case of Ireland it's safe to assume the unit supply hasn't changed much so demand was always there but prices have varied greatly. Money supply is one. When banks were not giving out money, houses were not moving and a lot of people were "renting". It was seen as a very bad time for us but homeless figures were lower. One factor for this is because in that climate occupancy rates were much higher but what country wants to stay in that state.

Wage and wealth disparity drives prices and reduces occupancy rates. Multi nation tech investment had a huge effect in the Dublin rental/buying market. Highly paid/specialised recently qualified individuals were now on the lookout with maybe 3 times or more the average industrial salary. Price wasn't a barrier and fair play to them we all say, what country wants to see their kids still dancing at the crossroads. But it does have consequences. Prices go up and people who can afford it like space and guest rooms which reduces occupancy, further driving up price. Bad news for those on the low end of the wage scale.

Don't know about speculation. I've been assuming when mentioning landlords here that it's the small guy. It wasn't really a speculators market here since the crash unless you had the cash outright. So yes, vulture funds made serious hay here speculating but I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon so don't really fall into the category "landlords leaving the market". UK market is a bit different too. Don't know if it's the same up north and England but interest only mortgages are still a thing over there so small guy can still speculate. Here, I don't believe you can get interest only mortgages anymore so speculation for the chancer not really an option. Plus I think they have better tax incentives as well.

People saying lifting of the eviction ban will make things worse will probably be proved right but only by default. Government have been asleep at the wheel where backup plans are concerned. Equally not lifting the ban will make things worse, maybe even more so, without a backup plan. Landlords need to be kept in the market and expecting private individuals with limited means to carry the can for social housing with no government support is crazy talk. So dirty trigger word for a lot of people, "incentivising landlords" needs to be seriously explored to keep them in and ease some of the serious concerns a lot of them have about current climate or where it might end. And there needs to be a speedy recourse where rent is blatantly not being paid. Where those individuals then go is purely the remit of government, period. This hardliner BS when it comes to landlords of f**k em, tough shit, scabby c***ts is nonsense and needs to stop. And politicians who feed on that and perpetuate it are complete and utter bluffers only out for votes with soundbites. They couldn't care less about people. It will take a lot of growing up from a lot of people to really solve this issue but I fear the biggest fear of political parties is that the other lot might solve it.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 11:14:30 PM
No one mentioned no risk and no landlord expects no risk. Perfectly acceptable business practice to borrow money on the strength of ROI for partial repayment. You could say the same thing about not taking on a mortgage if you can't repay if you lose your job. But that makes no practical sense. If you were so inherently wealthy not to require a job, or not to need rent, there'd be no need for the mortgage in the first place.

It's about controllable risk and stress test. Whereas before landlords accepted the risk and could afford to carry the can from loss of a couple of months rent or repair job after bad tenants, now there is no control whatsoever and they could be left for an indeterminate length of time (years if you listen to some hardliners) with no rent or recourse. And once the buffer money runs out i.e stress test, their family home could them come under risk. That's the unacceptable risk, a risk they didn't agree to when taking the mortgage, that has landlords wanting out. 

Hence why I made the point they should be able to afford repayments without the need for rental income. That is the risk from investing in a rental property - there may be no rental income. Regarding repossession of the family home, surely repossession of the rental property would be the first port of call? Has there been many incidences of "the small guy" having their family home repossessed for not paying rental property liabilities?

I wouldn't advise someone who couldn't afford to lose money in shares to invest in shares because they expect prices increase and they may potentially make some return on their investment. You can expect a return on a highly valuable asset all you want, doesn't mean it is going to materialise and become risk free. Don't see how the principal of investing in a rental property is any different.

As I originally stated, if they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place. I have no sympathies at all for people in this instance. They took a gamble to make more money, it hasn't paid off. That's life.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 12:46:00 PMThis hardliner BS when it comes to landlords of f**k em, tough shit, scabby c***ts is nonsense and needs to stop.

;D something tells me you have a vested interest in this subject!

Quote from: thewobbler on March 10, 2023, 10:46:24 PM

Quote from: CK_Redhand on March 10, 2023, 10:15:02 PM

Quote from: thewobbler on March 10, 2023, 09:14:59 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on March 10, 2023, 07:23:41 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 10, 2023, 06:12:50 PM
No, I'm saying if you can't afford your rental mortgage without income from tenants, then you shouldn't have one in the first instance. Tough shit.

Renting property is a business, you have to cover your costs. If there was a general inability to cover costs then the house would not have been rented out in the first place and so the tenants would never have had a house.

This is nonsense.

House prices, and therefore mortgages, and therefore rent, are not determined by the usual rules of supply and demand. These figures are determined by speculation levels and investment levels.

The problem is that all that speculation, all that investment, has reached a point whereby housing of any shape or form is an unaffordable proposition for a hefty and growing percentage of the population. Mr "quick buck" who took on a property or two at maximum LtV, and needing rent to always cover his mortgage is, clean and simple, fucked. He can't afford to do anything other than increase the rent, and nobody in his target market can afford to pay his new mortgage rate for him.

So we now in a situation where people are now both metaphorically and physically sleeping outside vacant properties.

f**k the landlords. f**k the greedy, skill less c***ts.

I dont understand this statement in bold. Speculation and investment levels are more complicated ways of saying demand.

Supply and demand is generally associated with needs and wants. No man needs more than 1 car, though he might want a few more. No harm done. No man needs a year's supply of groceries on tap at all times, though he might want to overstock for things he enjoys. No harm done. No man needs more than 10 pairs of trousers. Though m a wardrobe full of them affects nobody.

No man needs more than 1 house. Even if he wanted 2, no real harm. But speculation and investment potential leads them to buying more than they need. It means that property operates in a different sphere.

Which would be okay if it was flowers. Or ornaments. Or paintings. 

But we're dealing with a basic human need here.

f**k the greedy skill less c***ts who drive this stain on society.

I'm away to howl at the moon.

People are confusing speculation, where you hope that that price of property will increase and renting out houses. Now the two are related to some extent, but they are not the same thing.

Food is as essential. Not not everyone grows their own food, instead people invest in refrigerated warehouses and cheese factories and sell food to other people. This isn't much different than building or buying houses and renting them out to other people who do not buy their own
The problem is not people renting out houses, it is that enough people do not rent out houses and the state has been slow to fill the gap.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 10, 2023, 11:14:30 PM
No one mentioned no risk and no landlord expects no risk. Perfectly acceptable business practice to borrow money on the strength of ROI for partial repayment. You could say the same thing about not taking on a mortgage if you can't repay if you lose your job. But that makes no practical sense. If you were so inherently wealthy not to require a job, or not to need rent, there'd be no need for the mortgage in the first place.

It's about controllable risk and stress test. Whereas before landlords accepted the risk and could afford to carry the can from loss of a couple of months rent or repair job after bad tenants, now there is no control whatsoever and they could be left for an indeterminate length of time (years if you listen to some hardliners) with no rent or recourse. And once the buffer money runs out i.e stress test, their family home could them come under risk. That's the unacceptable risk, a risk they didn't agree to when taking the mortgage, that has landlords wanting out. 

Hence why I made the point they should be able to afford repayments without the need for rental income. That is the risk from investing in a rental property - there may be no rental income. Regarding repossession of the family home, surely repossession of the rental property would be the first port of call? Has there been many incidences of "the small guy" having their family home repossessed for not paying rental property liabilities?

I wouldn't advise someone who couldn't afford to lose money in shares to invest in shares because they expect prices increase and they may potentially make some return on their investment. You can expect a return on a highly valuable asset all you want, doesn't mean it is going to materialise and become risk free. Don't see how the principal of investing in a rental property is any different.

As I originally stated, if they can't afford to service the mortgage on the rental without tenants, shouldn't have taken on the mortgage in the first place. I have no sympathies at all for people in this instance. They took a gamble to make more money, it hasn't paid off. That's life.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 12:46:00 PMThis hardliner BS when it comes to landlords of f**k em, tough shit, scabby c***ts is nonsense and needs to stop.

;D something tells me you have a vested interest in this subject!

Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

;D something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 02:16:22 PM
Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

;D something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Think you're picking me up wrong. I'm not at all saying anyone should rent a property and not collect rent - I'm saying in the event that no rental income is there (whatever the reason - vacant property, non payment etc), the landlord should be able to afford their mortgage repayments. Very different things.

It's the principle of there being a risk of losing money in shares & property I was hinting at - not the actual investment vehicle itself. On that though, how can you "sell the place tomorrow" and also say property is "slower to dispose"? ;D

No prejudice against landlords at all - just no sympathy!

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:24:22 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 02:16:22 PM
Having no tenants is not a problem. You sell the place tomorrow.

You agreed it's idiotic to advocate for renting a property without collecting rent but it seems to be your fall back position every time. Please clarify, where tenants are in situ what's an acceptable loss over the course of a year on rent collection? 75%, 50%? If expected rent is 0% you're contradicting yourself.

Property and shares are not comparable. Property is bricks and mortar, lower yield, lower risk but less liquid. Higher maintenance, slower to dispose of and when you do it's all or nothing. You can't partially sell a house. Shares are higher yield, zero maintenance, can be immediately liquidised either partially or fully but are higher risk and can literally disappear into thin air in a moment.

;D something tells me you have a bit of a prejudice against landlords.

Think you're picking me up wrong. I'm not at all saying anyone should rent a property and not collect rent - I'm saying in the event that no rental income is there (whatever the reason - vacant property, non payment etc), the landlord should be able to afford their mortgage repayments. Very different things.

It's the principle of there being a risk of losing money in shares & property I was hinting at - not the actual investment vehicle itself. On that though, how can you "sell the place tomorrow" and also say property is "slower to dispose"? ;D

No prejudice against landlords at all - just no sympathy!

Sell the place tomorrow as in walking into an auctioneers in the morning and putting it on the market. With vacant possession, if you bought the place properly and deeds, structural reports and everything in order, you could conceivably be sale agreed in, I don't know, a month or less?
In the case of a tenant not paying rent and impossible to move, it's a very different scenario. How long are you talking? 6 months best case? A year? Two? If it dragged on too long, mortgage arrears could leave you so deep in it your ability to pay for you family home could be out of reach. I don't know how repossession works but imagine it wouldn't be so simple for banks to repossess when tenant occupied.

The risks are there for both shares and property but you would have to be a complete and utter idiot beyond reprieve to borrow money to buy shares. That's from a Sean Quinn sympathiser BTW  ;D ;D. And the bank that gave it to you would be worse.

You don't need to have sympathy for a landlord. Lots of things can f**k em. They could be idiots, greedy c***ts, going through a divorce, fallen on hard times, sick family member, the list goes on. But they are needed in a healthy rental market and no matter how that goes against the Irish psyche we're all European now and need to move on. And if we need landlords, then equally the rental landscape must have acceptable risk to attract people.

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

That's fair enough. But landlords deserve some protection on their asset same as any other person. If a property laying empty for a month or two between rents, then a landlord should be able to absorb those as realistic costs. Anyone who can't, shouldn't be a landlord. However an asset being held to ransom in the longer term by none paying tenants isn't a solution either.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 03:47:04 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

That's fair enough. But landlords deserve some protection on their asset same as any other person. If a property laying empty for a month or two between rents, then a landlord should be able to absorb those as realistic costs. Anyone who can't, shouldn't be a landlord. However an asset being held to ransom in the longer term by none paying tenants isn't a solution either.

Absolutely Trueblue. It's a cut throat business with some landlords being absolute c***ts and if a landlord over extends himself then that's his tough shit. But same as any business there has to be a point where you can cut your losses. There is literally no limit to the losses a landlord could potentially have to endure without the ability to cut the losses and walk away. So it's now incomparable with any legitimate investment vehicle. 
And there's more costs involved than just losing rent. There's property tax, building management fees, sinking funds, fire levy upgrades. These are fairly common and are not insignificant. They can run into thousands per year on their own. And the property owner cannot take the attitude of the tenant and just say f**k it to these bills. The property cannot be sold until all these arrears are cleared.

Against my better judgement, I'll stick my head above the parapet lol. I'm a landlord and and I'd like to think I'm a very fair and ethical one and not, in the words of wobbler a "greedy, callous skilless c**t"  :). Happy to answer any questions as honestly as I can, though anyone that thinks it is a straight forward, sit back and let the money roll in is badly mistaken. Its no doubt a great way to invest and  make an income, as it allows a great deal of flexibility time wise, and property investment is extremely resilient to inflation. However it would certainly not be for everyone. Can be a lot of hassle with maintenance, tenants etc, and I can see how people would find it extremely stressful. I would agree with Mike to a certain extent, that you should be able to pay your mortgage if the rent payments stopped, though only up to a point. You would be doing extremely well to make a 10% return on your investment, more likely 7 or 8. So the way interest rates are at present, I don't think thats exorbitant returns for the outlay and risk undertaken.
The carry on in Dublin is a totally different ball game.

Look-up is talking alot of sense

Have looked at and have pulled out because it's not as rosy as people think, I've a mate that has a 2 bedroom apartment and he Airbnb's it with no hassle

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

Ok

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

The 60,000 people on housing lists are the modern equivalent of spailpins.

Quote from: HiMucker on March 11, 2023, 04:37:49 PM
Against my better judgement, I'll stick my head above the parapet lol. I'm a landlord and and I'd like to think I'm a very fair and ethical one and not, in the words of wobbler a "greedy, callous skilless c**t"  :). Happy to answer any questions as honestly as I can, though anyone that thinks it is a straight forward, sit back and let the money roll in is badly mistaken. Its no doubt a great way to invest and  make an income, as it allows a great deal of flexibility time wise, and property investment is extremely resilient to inflation. However it would certainly not be for everyone. Can be a lot of hassle with maintenance, tenants etc, and I can see how people would find it extremely stressful. I would agree with Mike to a certain extent, that you should be able to pay your mortgage if the rent payments stopped, though only up to a point. You would be doing extremely well to make a 10% return on your investment, more likely 7 or 8. So the way interest rates are at present, I don't think thats exorbitant returns for the outlay and risk undertaken.
The carry on in Dublin is a totally different ball game.

Look-up is talking alot of sense

Hi HiMucker, just curious do you operate fully in south or north or are evenly spread between both and would you intend to increase what you have or offload some. And how worried would you be (or any mates in the game) about the eviction ban or the tightening of things further. If you don't want to give too much away no worries.

I wonder
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/03/14/tanaiste-says-state-has-turned-a-corner-on-activity-in-the-housing-sector/

Quote from: HiMucker on March 11, 2023, 04:37:49 PM
Against my better judgement, I'll stick my head above the parapet lol. I'm a landlord and and I'd like to think I'm a very fair and ethical one and not, in the words of wobbler a "greedy, callous skilless c**t"  :). Happy to answer any questions as honestly as I can, though anyone that thinks it is a straight forward, sit back and let the money roll in is badly mistaken. Its no doubt a great way to invest and  make an income, as it allows a great deal of flexibility time wise, and property investment is extremely resilient to inflation. However it would certainly not be for everyone. Can be a lot of hassle with maintenance, tenants etc, and I can see how people would find it extremely stressful. I would agree with Mike to a certain extent, that you should be able to pay your mortgage if the rent payments stopped, though only up to a point. You would be doing extremely well to make a 10% return on your investment, more likely 7 or 8. So the way interest rates are at present, I don't think thats exorbitant returns for the outlay and risk undertaken.
The carry on in Dublin is a totally different ball game.

Look-up is talking alot of sense

I'm an accidental landlord and have been very lucky to have had good tenants. Had a Lithuanian family in the house for 10 years until recently and they were the best tenants you could wish for as they treated the place like it was their own, and there's only about 5 years til the property is paid off so touch wood the current tenants continue to be as good.

Accidental landlord as well.

Rent covers the mortgage and rates with £10 left over after the mortgage payments increased.

Tenants in for around 8 years - a family - no rent increases in that time and they look after all of the maintenance.

I have had conversations in the past with other people who have multiple houses and they reckon I am mad to not increase the rent. But if it isnt costing me money and I am getting no hassle whatsoever from the tenants I dont see they point for a couple of extra quid a month.

Quote from: Taylor on March 15, 2023, 12:49:36 PM
Accidental landlord as well.

Rent covers the mortgage and rates with £10 left over after the mortgage payments increased.

Tenants in for around 8 years - a family - no rent increases in that time and they look after all of the maintenance.

I have had conversations in the past with other people who have multiple houses and they reckon I am mad to not increase the rent. But if it isnt costing me money and I am getting no hassle whatsoever from the tenants I dont see they point for a couple of extra quid a month.

Same boat myself. House rented out for 6 years now and tenants are ideal tenants so haven't increased the rent. Prob a bit on the low side now but no headaches which is well worth a couple of hundred a year. If they decide to move on will prob readjust then at that stage.

As long as each property wipes its face that is the main thing,  good tenants are hard to come by.

I have a bit of a portfolio I built up over 25 years, don't work on the public sector so my properties are my pension,  so well experienced in the game. One thing I would always argue is a good tenant is much better than a good weekly rent. I have a couple of properties that have tenants in them for 15 years, they are paying 30% below the market price but covering the mortgages and give no trouble, too good to push out. I have a Romanian family in a house I used to rent to students, much less hassle and very good tenants.  It's not a game for everyone and I got in at the right time but you don't always win with them all so need to be prepared for bumps in the road.

Your right PMG1 re timing.  I bought a new build town house in a development for 115k around 2006/07 and even today just about wipes its face.  Developer built a similar type of development in the same town with similar house types selling around 160k 12 months later just before things went pear shape.  Rent in this areas is the same so pity those that bought the 160k houses, not alone are they having to prop the mortgage on top of rental income but house would hardly be even worth 160k today.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Could the Gov, not come in and pay in part the rent to cover any losses the landlord has? Seeing as it is a Gov problem and the landlords are helping out the gov due to the housing problems they created

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2023, 02:47:36 PM

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Could the Gov, not come in and pay in part the rent to cover any losses the landlord has? Seeing as it is a Gov problem and the landlords are helping out the gov due to the housing problems they created

Maybe to a point but i would say some landlords are looking to evict to sell the property or are looking at the ridiculous high rents they can get due to shortage of housing - greed. Some maybe are just looking for a small adjustment upwards. Anyway, government arent interested in the small people down here, FFG will stamp them into the ground so their buddies can make as much money as possible.

In fairness I don't have too much sympathy for people who got in thinking they were going to making a killing off renting homes if they couldn't afford to buy the house without relying on the rent to cover their outlay.

A bit like the guy on radio yesterday complaining he'll miss out on the child protection benefits because it comes in next year and his child will be at school. but then goes on to say he's in the top 1% of earners and works from home twice a week and his wife is a part time teacher ffs!

Irish house prices only make sense if interest rates are on the floor. 8% on 400K is 32,000 per year and close to a nurse's salary.
Inflation is out of control so rates will go a lot higher. The GAAboard is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/03/16/ecb-pushes-ahead-with-another-05-interest-rate-hike-despite-market-turmoil/Taken together, the ECB rate hikes from last July will add a total of €640 a month to a €330,000 tracker mortgage.
Rachel McGovern of umbrella group Brokers Ireland said the situation is very worrying for the vast majority of mortgage holders, not just tracker mortgage holders.
"There are about 315,000 borrowers, including tracker mortgage holders, on variable rates.  The remaining 400,000 plus mortgage borrowers are on fixed rates, but over six in ten are fixed for less than three years," she said.

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Impossible to answer.

You'd have to be a heartless p***k to make someone homeless, someone who has been good to you for many years, if it was purely a means to put up your rent. Conversely it's equally heartless to deny someone access to their property if they or theirs are in danger of being homeless. Landlords fall under the category of Irish Citizens too.

End of the day it is the governments problem and they need to sort out social housing. Private rental market should be separate and there needs to be fluidity when it comes to leases and competition in it same as any healthy market.

Maybe you can answer your question with two scenarios.
1. You have a rental property 200 miles away well below market rent. Your daughter/son is starting university beside it in 6 months. Main reason you bought it in first place was with your kids in mind. They have no where else to stay. You happy to have them commuting for hours because someone else doesn't want to move 30 mins?
2. Your daughter/son has kid on the way. You'd like to rent them your spare property. Tenant is a decent person but there's nowhere else available at anything close to what you're charging. They don't want to move into their parent's garage. Do you move yours into your garage even though that's beneath other people. Again the main reason you bought rental in first place was with your kids in mind.

How do you legislate for situations like that or where the landlord is being a completely greedy heartless p***k? Government are totally to blame. One thing that people tend to overlook in homeless situation, and it is maybe one of the biggest factors to the crux of the issue where supply is static, falling occupancy rates increase homelessness. It's been an easy pitch lazy politicians been selling for years, promising more private ownership and running the nasty landlords out of town, all while sitting on their hands or being downright aggressive against new developments. That is always going to push people out on the street.
There needs to be incentives to get occupancy up. Funnily enough one of them is having a mortgage and needing rent and not leaving it idle. Someone else on here disgusted at someone having multiple properties and renting them out but said someone having 2 was a perfectly natural human need (I'm guessing holiday home) and no harm done. That's literally dropping occupancy rate to 50% at best, but probably much much less.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 16, 2023, 05:17:39 PM

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Impossible to answer.

You'd have to be a heartless p***k to make someone homeless, someone who has been good to you for many years, if it was purely a means to put up your rent. Conversely it's equally heartless to deny someone access to their property if they or theirs are in danger of being homeless. Landlords fall under the category of Irish Citizens too.

End of the day it is the governments problem and they need to sort out social housing. Private rental market should be separate and there needs to be fluidity when it comes to leases and competition in it same as any healthy market.

Maybe you can answer your question with two scenarios.
1. You have a rental property 200 miles away well below market rent. Your daughter/son is starting university beside it in 6 months. Main reason you bought it in first place was with your kids in mind. They have no where else to stay. You happy to have them commuting for hours because someone else doesn't want to move 30 mins?
2. Your daughter/son has kid on the way. You'd like to rent them your spare property. Tenant is a decent person but there's nowhere else available at anything close to what you're charging. They don't want to move into their parent's garage. Do you move yours into your garage even though that's beneath other people. Again the main reason you bought rental in first place was with your kids in mind.

How do you legislate for situations like that or where the landlord is being a completely greedy heartless p***k? Government are totally to blame. One thing that people tend to overlook in homeless situation, and it is maybe one of the biggest factors to the crux of the issue where supply is static, falling occupancy rates increase homelessness. It's been an easy pitch lazy politicians been selling for years, promising more private ownership and running the nasty landlords out of town, all while sitting on their hands or being downright aggressive against new developments. That is always going to push people out on the street.
There needs to be incentives to get occupancy up. Funnily enough one of them is having a mortgage and needing rent and not leaving it idle. Someone else on here disgusted at someone having multiple properties and renting them out but said someone having 2 was a perfectly natural human need (I'm guessing holiday home) and no harm done. That's literally dropping occupancy rate to 50% at best, but probably much much less.

You can only legislate for the majority issue and this is a short term (hopefully) issue. The 2 examples you gave are understandable and if each case could be looked at individually then those would be allowed to evict. But I doubt those are the majority. More likely its big business and vulture funds that want to evict and this is what government is pandering too. FFG dont care about you or your kid in college or the family going onto the street. They care about the money. I totally agree those two parties especially are to blame for the situation the country is in and they are two parties I will never give any sort of a vote to personally.

Quote from: Itchy on March 17, 2023, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 16, 2023, 05:17:39 PM

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Impossible to answer.

You'd have to be a heartless p***k to make someone homeless, someone who has been good to you for many years, if it was purely a means to put up your rent. Conversely it's equally heartless to deny someone access to their property if they or theirs are in danger of being homeless. Landlords fall under the category of Irish Citizens too.

End of the day it is the governments problem and they need to sort out social housing. Private rental market should be separate and there needs to be fluidity when it comes to leases and competition in it same as any healthy market.

Maybe you can answer your question with two scenarios.
1. You have a rental property 200 miles away well below market rent. Your daughter/son is starting university beside it in 6 months. Main reason you bought it in first place was with your kids in mind. They have no where else to stay. You happy to have them commuting for hours because someone else doesn't want to move 30 mins?
2. Your daughter/son has kid on the way. You'd like to rent them your spare property. Tenant is a decent person but there's nowhere else available at anything close to what you're charging. They don't want to move into their parent's garage. Do you move yours into your garage even though that's beneath other people. Again the main reason you bought rental in first place was with your kids in mind.

How do you legislate for situations like that or where the landlord is being a completely greedy heartless p***k? Government are totally to blame. One thing that people tend to overlook in homeless situation, and it is maybe one of the biggest factors to the crux of the issue where supply is static, falling occupancy rates increase homelessness. It's been an easy pitch lazy politicians been selling for years, promising more private ownership and running the nasty landlords out of town, all while sitting on their hands or being downright aggressive against new developments. That is always going to push people out on the street.
There needs to be incentives to get occupancy up. Funnily enough one of them is having a mortgage and needing rent and not leaving it idle. Someone else on here disgusted at someone having multiple properties and renting them out but said someone having 2 was a perfectly natural human need (I'm guessing holiday home) and no harm done. That's literally dropping occupancy rate to 50% at best, but probably much much less.

You can only legislate for the majority issue and this is a short term (hopefully) issue. The 2 examples you gave are understandable and if each case could be looked at individually then those would be allowed to evict. But I doubt those are the majority. More likely its big business and vulture funds that want to evict and this is what government is pandering too. FFG dont care about you or your kid in college or the family going onto the street. They care about the money. I totally agree those two parties especially are to blame for the situation the country is in and they are two parties I will never give any sort of a vote to personally.

Of course it's their fault.

This housing issie has been going on for 10 years and they've been in total government for all this time and they're just papering over the cracks.

As I said before, they're a housing crisis BUT the current government are not treating it like a crisis e.g. Covid, where everything was thrown at Covid.  This is what a lecturer said on a debate about the housing situation last week on a tv debate.

He's totally right.

This current government doesn't have the will, for whatever reason, to deal with the housing issue.

Quote from: Itchy on March 17, 2023, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 16, 2023, 05:17:39 PM

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Impossible to answer.

You'd have to be a heartless p***k to make someone homeless, someone who has been good to you for many years, if it was purely a means to put up your rent. Conversely it's equally heartless to deny someone access to their property if they or theirs are in danger of being homeless. Landlords fall under the category of Irish Citizens too.

End of the day it is the governments problem and they need to sort out social housing. Private rental market should be separate and there needs to be fluidity when it comes to leases and competition in it same as any healthy market.

Maybe you can answer your question with two scenarios.
1. You have a rental property 200 miles away well below market rent. Your daughter/son is starting university beside it in 6 months. Main reason you bought it in first place was with your kids in mind. They have no where else to stay. You happy to have them commuting for hours because someone else doesn't want to move 30 mins?
2. Your daughter/son has kid on the way. You'd like to rent them your spare property. Tenant is a decent person but there's nowhere else available at anything close to what you're charging. They don't want to move into their parent's garage. Do you move yours into your garage even though that's beneath other people. Again the main reason you bought rental in first place was with your kids in mind.

How do you legislate for situations like that or where the landlord is being a completely greedy heartless p***k? Government are totally to blame. One thing that people tend to overlook in homeless situation, and it is maybe one of the biggest factors to the crux of the issue where supply is static, falling occupancy rates increase homelessness. It's been an easy pitch lazy politicians been selling for years, promising more private ownership and running the nasty landlords out of town, all while sitting on their hands or being downright aggressive against new developments. That is always going to push people out on the street.
There needs to be incentives to get occupancy up. Funnily enough one of them is having a mortgage and needing rent and not leaving it idle. Someone else on here disgusted at someone having multiple properties and renting them out but said someone having 2 was a perfectly natural human need (I'm guessing holiday home) and no harm done. That's literally dropping occupancy rate to 50% at best, but probably much much less.

You can only legislate for the majority issue and this is a short term (hopefully) issue. The 2 examples you gave are understandable and if each case could be looked at individually then those would be allowed to evict. But I doubt those are the majority. More likely its big business and vulture funds that want to evict and this is what government is pandering too. FFG dont care about you or your kid in college or the family going onto the street. They care about the money. I totally agree those two parties especially are to blame for the situation the country is in and they are two parties I will never give any sort of a vote to personally.

Opposition parties have to take responsibility too, it's on all elected officials. There have been plenty vocal on this issue and quick to jump on populist policy, be it on rental or development side. None of this has improved anything but it does sway government decisions. I've never voted FFG, it's always been SF when I've voted. Starting to think it's a wasted vote. Annoys me when they come out with smart ass BS that the reason we are in today's predicament is that no one has used their ideas. Not even sure if they want to be in government, just happy to snipe from the sidelines hoping to pick up a few more votes and ride the gravy train for what it's worth.
Anyone can end up homeless, from low paid to high tech worker. From non homeowner to landlord. Anyone that is except politicians. That gravy never stops flowing. I'm starting to think they all drink together in the Dail bar after one of their "rows", laughing at the show they put on for the plebs.

Quote from: marty34 on March 17, 2023, 12:11:29 PM

Quote from: Itchy on March 17, 2023, 11:59:51 AM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 16, 2023, 05:17:39 PM

Quote from: Itchy on March 16, 2023, 02:31:51 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 11, 2023, 06:08:49 PM

Quote from: Armagh18 on March 11, 2023, 05:35:48 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 02:28:47 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 11, 2023, 02:19:58 PM

Quote from: Mike Tyson on March 11, 2023, 01:34:13 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on March 10, 2023, 08:35:32 PM
So do you think there should be any actions available for landlords in cases where tenants don't pay rent? Or just tough sh!t and they should absorb the cost?

Yes there should.

What would it look like? It has to be enough of a deterrent to prevent widespread abuse of the rental system by tenants.

No idea, I don't set policy or have any plans to do so. Just absolutely zero sympathy for someone who buys a second property without affordability to repay the mortgage, then complains when it doesn't go according to plan!

The rent is the affordability. Handy enough to get tenants, if you've some bum refusing to pay rent out to f**k

I understand how some people see that as cold and callous and "throwing families on the side of the road" but that is the failure of government and social housing. People on the waiting list for over 10yrs! It really boils my piss when politicians try to lay that at the door of private individuals. They need to stop sniping and vote fishing and work together to come up with a solution. They literally found housing for thousands of Ukranians at the drop of a hat.

Landlords will generally work with tenants where there is good will and genuine effort. There are a lot of things to happen before someone gets turfed out. Hard to have sympathy for someone absolutely refusing to pay rent. There are welfare payments, HAP schemes, family supports, rent supplements etc readily available so sure, paying the full rent might be difficult but to pay the sum total of SFA, yes, you're a bum and a fraud. Literally.

Just wondering then do you think it is ok for a landlord to knowingly evict someone who is paying their rent knowing that there is no accommodation elsewhere that they can afford, thus making them homeless - just because it is not the landlords fault that there isn't other property available. Not saying landlords created the problem (that would be FFG) but unfortunately you are part of the solution and until housing is available, the state has a duty to do whatever has to be done to keep a roof over the heads of Irish Citizens.

Impossible to answer.

You'd have to be a heartless p***k to make someone homeless, someone who has been good to you for many years, if it was purely a means to put up your rent. Conversely it's equally heartless to deny someone access to their property if they or theirs are in danger of being homeless. Landlords fall under the category of Irish Citizens too.

End of the day it is the governments problem and they need to sort out social housing. Private rental market should be separate and there needs to be fluidity when it comes to leases and competition in it same as any healthy market.

Maybe you can answer your question with two scenarios.
1. You have a rental property 200 miles away well below market rent. Your daughter/son is starting university beside it in 6 months. Main reason you bought it in first place was with your kids in mind. They have no where else to stay. You happy to have them commuting for hours because someone else doesn't want to move 30 mins?
2. Your daughter/son has kid on the way. You'd like to rent them your spare property. Tenant is a decent person but there's nowhere else available at anything close to what you're charging. They don't want to move into their parent's garage. Do you move yours into your garage even though that's beneath other people. Again the main reason you bought rental in first place was with your kids in mind.

How do you legislate for situations like that or where the landlord is being a completely greedy heartless p***k? Government are totally to blame. One thing that people tend to overlook in homeless situation, and it is maybe one of the biggest factors to the crux of the issue where supply is static, falling occupancy rates increase homelessness. It's been an easy pitch lazy politicians been selling for years, promising more private ownership and running the nasty landlords out of town, all while sitting on their hands or being downright aggressive against new developments. That is always going to push people out on the street.
There needs to be incentives to get occupancy up. Funnily enough one of them is having a mortgage and needing rent and not leaving it idle. Someone else on here disgusted at someone having multiple properties and renting them out but said someone having 2 was a perfectly natural human need (I'm guessing holiday home) and no harm done. That's literally dropping occupancy rate to 50% at best, but probably much much less.

You can only legislate for the majority issue and this is a short term (hopefully) issue. The 2 examples you gave are understandable and if each case could be looked at individually then those would be allowed to evict. But I doubt those are the majority. More likely its big business and vulture funds that want to evict and this is what government is pandering too. FFG dont care about you or your kid in college or the family going onto the street. They care about the money. I totally agree those two parties especially are to blame for the situation the country is in and they are two parties I will never give any sort of a vote to personally.

Of course it's their fault.

This housing issie has been going on for 10 years and they've been in total government for all this time and they're just papering over the cracks.

As I said before, they're a housing crisis BUT the current government are not treating it like a crisis e.g. Covid, where everything was thrown at Covid.  This is what a lecturer said on a debate about the housing situation last week on a tv debate.

He's totally right.

This current government doesn't have the will, for whatever reason, to deal with the housing issue.

At the risk of sounding over cynical, COVID effected everyone so it was in everyone's interest, government and opposition, to get it sorted ASAP.

I don't think it's possible for a government, whoever they are that are in power, to get the full backing of everyone to go an a full on offensive to sort the homeless situation out. Would take some amount of co-operation on everything from budgets to emergency legislation for planning etc for it to work.

If people are not happy with the politicians representing them then they can sack them every 5 years. It is an insecure job.

Show me a politician that can build the housing that needs to be built and they'll have my vote.

Anyone pushing any other policy is a charlatan selling the story of the loaves and fishes.

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 19, 2023, 11:51:23 AM
Show me a politician that can build the housing that needs to be built and they'll have my vote.

Anyone pushing any other policy is a charlatan selling the story of the loaves and fishes.

A cynic might ask why would a landlord want housing built, wouldn't it bring rents down?

Quote from: Itchy on March 19, 2023, 12:05:04 PM

Quote from: Look-Up! on March 19, 2023, 11:51:23 AM
Show me a politician that can build the housing that needs to be built and they'll have my vote.

Anyone pushing any other policy is a charlatan selling the story of the loaves and fishes.

A cynic might ask why would a landlord want housing built, wouldn't it bring rents down?

Rents are far too high. Should be affordable. Affects everyone from their work choices to education. Landlords have families and friends too. Once the yields are realistic and stable, it's your choice to be a landlord or not. Better keep the get rich quick merchants out of it. Better keep it separate from social housing market too. Landlords in general prefer to avoid HAP but can end up in front of a judge for refusing. Plus a property is a huge asset and commitment with risk. So fluidity of leases suits everyone. If a landlord needs to get out of the game for whatever reason, being able to do so quickly reduces the risk.

A day of Shame in the Dail but the silver lining is that many of these TDs will not serve another term, although I'm not sure the people being made newly homeless will see it like that.

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2023/03/23/government-faces-further-pressure-over-evictions-ban-despite-dail-vote-win/

The Department of Tourism confirmed that changes to legislation to restrict Airbnb tenancies are to be delayed after the European Commission extended a "standstill period" for another nine months while the new law is considered until December 22nd.
Strengthened regulations, the Government believes, could cause 12,000 homes to come back into the rental market.

https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Disgrace. Some crowd called Greendrive Asset Holdings. I wonder what the political affiliations of the directors are.

That's a joke and is just an example of what is happening in the south.

This FFG government is a joke. It's just getting worse.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Perhaps. But the new buyers will probably rent out these houses, is that not what people want?

Quote from: armaghniac on March 24, 2023, 06:15:39 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Perhaps. But the new buyers will probably rent out these houses, is that not what people want?

Wtf?

They want to buy them.

Quote from: marty34 on March 24, 2023, 06:37:44 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on March 24, 2023, 06:15:39 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Perhaps. But the new buyers will probably rent out these houses, is that not what people want?

Wtf?

They want to buy them.

Those people want to buy them, someone else wants to rent them. It is a game of musical chairs.

Quote from: armaghniac on March 24, 2023, 06:42:07 PM

Quote from: marty34 on March 24, 2023, 06:37:44 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on March 24, 2023, 06:15:39 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Perhaps. But the new buyers will probably rent out these houses, is that not what people want?

Wtf?

They want to buy them.

Those people want to buy them, someone else wants to rent them. It is a game of musical chairs.

Is it not a vulture fund?

Greendrive Asset Holdings with a registered address in Kilmaine doesn't quite sound like your typical vulture fund. Much more small time and with local knowledge I imagine.

Quote from: general_lee on March 24, 2023, 02:23:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Disgrace. Some crowd called Greendrive Asset Holdings. I wonder what the political affiliations of the directors are.

I don't understand

Did the potential buyers not have a legally binding contract?

Why would they give their notice at their current rental, if the contract they were signing for the new house was not legally binding?

Quote from: whitey on March 24, 2023, 07:57:04 PM

Quote from: general_lee on March 24, 2023, 02:23:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 24, 2023, 02:18:36 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA (https://mobile.twitter.com/caulmick/status/1639175657245507584?s=48&t=RYtl0Il2l5K_ejkHKyVHiA)

Pretty shocking stuff.

Disgrace. Some crowd called Greendrive Asset Holdings. I wonder what the political affiliations of the directors are.

I don't understand

Did the potential buyers not have a legally binding contract?

Why would they give their notice at their current rental, if the contract they were signing for the new house was not legally binding?

No. Sale agreed offers f**k all but can protect both buyer and seller.

At times you wonder about the people in Ireland, the French are tearing their country apart over having to work till they're 64. Were been gouged by a government as corrupt as the Tories and there vulture fund mates and bar a few young ones getting thrown out of a lecture at Trinity by Eamon Ryan there has hardly been a word raised.

There should be protests outside every independent TD'S office who voted with the government Wednesday night, rather than scaring the shite out of a few refugees in East Wall. 

Quote from: pbat on March 24, 2023, 08:16:12 PM
At times you wonder about the people in Ireland, the French are tearing their country apart over having to work till they're 64. Were been gouged by a government as corrupt as the Tories and there vulture fund mates and bar a few young ones getting thrown out of a lecture at Trinity by Eamon Ryan there has hardly been a word raised.

There should be protests outside every independent TD'S office who voted with the government Wednesday night, rather than scaring the shite out of a few refugees in East Wall.

100%.

Quote from: pbat on March 24, 2023, 08:16:12 PM
At times you wonder about the people in Ireland, the French are tearing their country apart over having to work till they're 64. Were been gouged by a government as corrupt as the Tories and there vulture fund mates and bar a few young ones getting thrown out of a lecture at Trinity by Eamon Ryan there has hardly been a word raised.

There should be protests outside every independent TD'S office who voted with the government Wednesday night, rather than scaring the shite out of a few refugees in East Wall.

Protests to what purpose? If people want to do something then go and repair an old house so that it can be occupied.

Quote from: clarshack on March 24, 2023, 09:27:01 PM
Most people in Ireland have the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.
There's also the fact that if they did somehow go out and protest they'd probably be labelled 'Far Right' and people here seem to be petrified of being labelled.

Just keep voting them in, you get what you deserve

Quote from: clarshack on March 24, 2023, 09:27:01 PM
Most people in Ireland have the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

And the "alright" people vote while only a small percentage of those who aren't "alright"  do so.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 24, 2023, 09:38:56 PM

Quote from: clarshack on March 24, 2023, 09:27:01 PM
Most people in Ireland have the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

And the "alright" people vote while only a small percentage of those who aren't "alright"  do so.
[/quote

And who's fault is that?

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 24, 2023, 09:31:47 PM

Quote from: clarshack on March 24, 2023, 09:27:01 PM
Most people in Ireland have the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.
There's also the fact that if they did somehow go out and protest they'd probably be labelled 'Far Right' and people here seem to be petrified of being labelled.

Just keep voting them in, you get what you deserve

That oul democracy stuff is a nuisance alright ;D

Quote from: trileacman on March 24, 2023, 09:40:29 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 24, 2023, 09:38:56 PM

Quote from: clarshack on March 24, 2023, 09:27:01 PM
Most people in Ireland have the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

And the "alright" people vote while only a small percentage of those who aren't "alright"  do so.
[/quote

And who's fault is that?

You can't make people vote.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 24, 2023, 09:41:44 PM
You can't make people vote.

True. My point is someone who complains about how the country is run, without using their democratic right to influence how it's run, is a gobshite.

Quote from: trileacman on March 24, 2023, 09:45:39 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 24, 2023, 09:41:44 PM
You can't make people vote.

True. My point is someone who complains about how the country is run, without using their democratic right to influence how it's run, is a gobshite.

For around 70/80 years the Ulster Unionists party was the largest party, they couldn't win at tiddlywinks now. Votes matter (not that these Cnuts DUP are an improvement)

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2023/0323/1365936-baldoyle-scheme-refused-permission/

Planning for about 1200 homes refused. They don't want to go high in the cities or get too developed, don't want to over develop commuter villages incase it's the catalyst for more development and they don't want you building on your own land in the countryside but they estimate we're underpopulated and 10 million is the number we're heading for.

Is there a coherent plan between any of them.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2023/03/31/eviction-ban-horror-movie-for-tenants-as-thousands-face-possible-eviction-from-tomorrow/

Fr McVerry added: "There's no good time to lift the eviction ban. But during the eviction ban, it would have been hoped that measures would have been put in place to mitigate the worst effects of the eviction ban. If we had extended it for 12 months, you know, we could have 7,000 modular units on site in the next 12 months if we wanted to."
When asked if he had any advice for people faced with a termination notice, Fr McVerry said "I don't have any advice to give them. I'm sorry. To be honest, they are going to be evicted. They're going to be possibly on the street. Of course, go to your local council and look for emergency accommodation. If the local council doesn't have it, I don't know what you do, to be honest... I mean, that's just the nightmare. That's the nightmare."

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/04/04/typical-income-for-irish-house-buyers-rises-by-nearly-50-in-a-decade-to-71300/
The median income of those buying with a mortgage was €79,200 in 2021 (up from €56,700 in 2012) compared with €49,900 for buyers without a mortgage (up from €37,100 in 2012). The median is the middle point between the lowest and highest value mortgages.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/programme-for-government-wrong-to-put-faith-in-private-builders-1.4286542
The previous Government's housing strategy, Rebuilding Ireland, was launched in 2016. At the time, fewer than 10,000 new homes were being built annually and the median sales price was €250,000 nationally. The Department of Housing introduced a series of policy initiatives to improve developer "viability". By 2019 the median price of new home was €335,000 nationally and €390,000 in Dublin. Good for developers, not for buyers. Most recently, the property sector claims that developing an apartment in Dublin costs €460,000. The State and their agents are also active, buying up one quarter of all new market homes, for social housing last year. The "half a million euro" social home is now established in policy, and at a time when the Minister confirms an "all-in" cost of less than €250,000 nationally, for a two-bedroom apartment developed by local authoritie

A lot of apologising and "clarifying" going on this week....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0405/1374397-fr-peter-mcverry-taoiseach/

Won't change the situation on the ground.

€1 billion, yes €1 billion UNDERspend by the Dept. Of Housing between 2020 and 2022.

We're taking the housing crisis seriously!  >:(

Quote from: marty34 on April 06, 2023, 07:48:14 AM
€1 billion, yes €1 billion UNDERspend by the Dept. Of Housing between 2020 and 2022.

We're taking the housing crisis seriously!  >:(

I know covid is to blame for a fair amount but holy f**k. Sites were open most of the time were they not.

To think Government wants Councils to solve the housing crisis....

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41115031.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2023/0727/1396683-what-i-heard-as-an-undercover-renter-cash-or-some-other-way/

We are lovely people us Irish

Quote from: Rudi on July 27, 2023, 08:46:47 AM
https://www.rte.ie/news/investigations-unit/2023/0727/1396683-what-i-heard-as-an-undercover-renter-cash-or-some-other-way/

We are lovely people us Irish

And these men will have their faces blurred out and no one in their friend or family circle will be any the wiser to their predatory behaviours and nature. To be perfectly blunt - they should be named and shamed, they're owed nothing in terms of protection.

One reason the Shinners are so popular:

Cartamundi employed 234 people in Waterford this time last year.

There was no sign of any problem then and the accounts were signed off declaring  a "profitable and cash generative" business with no doubt that it was a going concern,
234 jobs were lost in August
the factory is now on sale for €18m

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2023/03/23/cartamundi-owners-received-almost-31m-in-dividends-from-ireland-before-closing-waterford-factory/


The Belgian owners of game-maker Cartamundi received almost €31 million in dividends from Ireland in the years before closing its Waterford factory with the loss of 234 jobs, corporate records reveal.
Generations of children and adults have played board games such as Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Connect 4 and Cluedo in the decades since the former MB Games set up in Waterford in 1977.
Now Cartamundi, which took over the business in 2015, has blamed a post-Covid slump in demand for games and rising costs for the decision, announced yesterday, to shut the Irish factory in August.
Company filings show the Irish unit paid out big dividends to Cartamundi in each of the years since it came under its ownership.
A €2.9 million dividend payment from Ireland was approved last July after Cartamundi received €3.9 million in 2021 and €3.2 million in 2020. Such payments followed a €5.7 million dividend in 2019, €6.4 million in 2018, €5.5 million in 2017 and €3.2 million in 2016.

After company chiefs told Waterford staff their fate yesterday, there was no comment from Cartamundi on its dividends.

 
Union leader said they will strive in coming weeks to save the jobs. "Absolutely devastating news," said Ciarán Scallan, a Siptu organiser.
"For those jobs that can't be saved, we will seek to negotiate a redundancy package which recognises and reflects the loyalty and commitment of this workforce for many decades."
Cartamundi, based in Turnhout near Antwerp, claims to be the world's largest manufacturer of board games and playing cards.
Company accounts for Cartamundi Ireland Ltd, signed off only last October, described a "profitable and cash generative" business and said there were no material uncertainties "that may cast significant doubt" over its ability to continue as a going concern.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2023/03/23/cartamundi-owners-received-almost-31m-in-dividends-from-ireland-before-closing-waterford-factory/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIh5dUOz824

Quote from: seafoid on September 27, 2023, 07:48:47 AMOne reason the Shinners are so popular:

Cartamundi employed 234 people in Waterford this time last year.

There was no sign of any problem then and the accounts were signed off declaring  a "profitable and cash generative" business with no doubt that it was a going concern,
234 jobs were lost in August
the factory is now on sale for €18m

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2023/03/23/cartamundi-owners-received-almost-31m-in-dividends-from-ireland-before-closing-waterford-factory/


The Belgian owners of game-maker Cartamundi received almost €31 million in dividends from Ireland in the years before closing its Waterford factory with the loss of 234 jobs, corporate records reveal.
Generations of children and adults have played board games such as Monopoly, Trivial Pursuit, Connect 4 and Cluedo in the decades since the former MB Games set up in Waterford in 1977.
Now Cartamundi, which took over the business in 2015, has blamed a post-Covid slump in demand for games and rising costs for the decision, announced yesterday, to shut the Irish factory in August.
Company filings show the Irish unit paid out big dividends to Cartamundi in each of the years since it came under its ownership.
A €2.9 million dividend payment from Ireland was approved last July after Cartamundi received €3.9 million in 2021 and €3.2 million in 2020. Such payments followed a €5.7 million dividend in 2019, €6.4 million in 2018, €5.5 million in 2017 and €3.2 million in 2016.

After company chiefs told Waterford staff their fate yesterday, there was no comment from Cartamundi on its dividends.

 
Union leader said they will strive in coming weeks to save the jobs. "Absolutely devastating news," said Ciarán Scallan, a Siptu organiser.
"For those jobs that can't be saved, we will seek to negotiate a redundancy package which recognises and reflects the loyalty and commitment of this workforce for many decades."
Cartamundi, based in Turnhout near Antwerp, claims to be the world's largest manufacturer of board games and playing cards.
Company accounts for Cartamundi Ireland Ltd, signed off only last October, described a "profitable and cash generative" business and said there were no material uncertainties "that may cast significant doubt" over its ability to continue as a going concern.


https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/2023/03/23/cartamundi-owners-received-almost-31m-in-dividends-from-ireland-before-closing-waterford-factory/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIh5dUOz824

MB Games were the reason why every kid in Waterford had a game of Connect 4 and Downfall at knock down factory prices.