There's eviction,and then,there's EVICTION.

beauf

When I search I get

Found 187 properties. Displaying properties 1 - 10 below
Searching for 2+ bed properties to let for less than €1,100 per month in Dublin City

Found 288 properties. Displaying properties 1 - 10 below
Searching for 2+ bed properties to let for less than €1,200 per month in Dublin City

Found 400 properties. Displaying properties 1 - 10 below
Searching for 2+ bed properties to let for less than €1,300 per month in Dublin City

Co Dublin gives me much the same.

everdead.ie

BarryBrack1 wrote: »

I'm doing on desktop ... If u select city centre, south city, North City it's 73.

Either ways.... it seems a very, very low supply.

Well North side is only half the city, it is a low supply yes and it's supply that needs to be increased.

Either way 1100 is still very low in my opinion for a two bed apartment I would expect most places to be 1350 plus. Obviously the further you get out of the city the less you would pay unless you go into a very good area.

BarryBrack1

beauf wrote: »

When I search I get

Go on desktop search North, South and centre and you get 73.

Not saying ur search is wrong. It jus obvs comes out differently when u search centre, North and South.

73 vs 187.... what odds. Both mean very little available at affordable level. Im totally smashed now now paying 1400. Will never be able 2 save 4 house. And need 2 stay round area I am as am only child with ill parents (just near portobello's my area).

beauf

There's a lot of people in the same boat. Hard situation for everyone.

Many would say why do you need to buy. Especially in other countries there isn't this urge to buy as there is in Ireland. People rent for their whole lives, much more in other countries. The other side is why do adult children have to move to be near their parents (or any older dependants). Maybe they should move to the where their kids are. Especially if they can afford to and the kids can't.

Thats seems to be the Govt approach. If you can afford a certain area then you can pay the full tax that area commands. If that means people downsizing, moving area. So be it. As healthcare costs rise the burden is moved from the state to the children/family. So from all angles the family is especially hammered from all directions in rising costs and taxes. I

I'd be careful getting into property, all signs point to the Govt squeezing every last drop of tax they can out of this sector. As they are the least able to avoid it.

Scofflaw

BarryBrack1 wrote: »

Go on desktop search North, South and centre and you get 73.

Not saying ur search is wrong. It jus obvs comes out differently when u search centre, North and South.

73 vs 187.... what odds. Both mean very little available at affordable level. Im totally smashed now now paying 1400. Will never be able 2 save 4 house. And need 2 stay round area I am as am only child with ill parents (just near portobello's my area).

BarryBrack1, I'm only going to say this this one time. Stop using text speak, or I will ban you from the forum repeatedly until either you stop or your ban upgrades to permanent. Everybody else can manage to spell whole words, you're expected to do the same.

Posting in any forum on Boards is not a right, and you are expected to read and abide by the forum charter, which includes two points you're already in breach of - using txtspk and back-chatting moderation.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Godge

BarryBrack1 wrote: »

Go on desktop search North, South and centre and you get 73.

Not saying ur search is wrong. It jus obvs comes out differently when u search centre, North and South.

73 vs 187.... what odds. Both mean very little available at affordable level. Im totally smashed now now paying 1400. Will never be able 2 save 4 house. And need 2 stay round area I am as am only child with ill parents (just near portobello's my area).

Why do you need to buy a property? You are an only child, in the natural order of things you will inherit a property sometime (be it 10, 20 or 30 years time). If you have spent your life slaved to a mortgage at that stage, you will have 2 properties but for what?

In the meantime you can rent wherever it suits.

BarryBrack1

Scofflaw wrote: »

BarryBrack1, I'm only going to say this this one time. Stop using text speak, or I will ban you from the forum repeatedly until either you stop or your ban upgrades to permanent. Everybody else can manage to spell whole words, you're expected to do the same.

Posting in any forum on Boards is not a right, and you are expected to read and abide by the forum charter, which includes two points you're already in breach of - using txtspk and back-chatting moderation.

moderately,
Scofflaw

No probs..... delete me.... Only joined 2 say my piece. Can't figure out how 2 delete myself on your site. Thanks

everdead.ie

I thought that repossessions would have a fairly neutral affect on housing as effectively the same amount of people would be fighting for the same amount of homes as repossessed homes came onto the market however that hasn't been the case in the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-07/silicon-valley-cooks-to-housekeepers-facing-home-eviction.html

Demand for leased housing has increased after about 5 million owners lost their homes to foreclosure since 2008. Rents across the U.S. have risen 16 percent in the past five years, according to apartment-research company Axiometrics Inc., based in Dallas, Texas.

Rents Surge

U.S. rents are expected to increase 4.2 percent this year compared with a 2.7 percent gain for home purchase prices, according to the Fannie Mae National Housing Survey released today.

Maybe I'm missing something, anyone have any thoughts on this?

Perhaps the repossessed homes aren't suitable for renting?

beauf

Isn't a discussion about the US market a completely different topic? It may have little in common with the Irish one.

everdead.ie

beauf wrote: »

Isn't a discussion about the US market a completely different topic? It may have little in common with the Irish one.

I know i just stumbled across this one and thought that comment was interesting we already know that the government won't allow people to be left homeless after having their homes repossessed but could it have a negative affect on the cost of rent?

Calina

everdead.ie wrote: »

I thought that repossessions would have a fairly neutral affect on housing as effectively the same amount of people would be fighting for the same amount of homes as repossessed homes came onto the market however that hasn't been the case in the US.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-07/silicon-valley-cooks-to-housekeepers-facing-home-eviction.html



Maybe I'm missing something, anyone have any thoughts on this?

Perhaps the repossessed homes aren't suitable for renting?

You're missing something. Disruption to the rental market is caused as homes move between the sales and rental market, and additionally, those who've lost their homes join the rental market. There is a time lag issue which means rental supply is erratic with the corresponding impact on prices via supply and demand.

beauf

It puts more people out renting. and bank will try to make as much money as they can on the deal. So while there's a shortage of housing they'll take full advantage of it. There will be no fire sale.

AlekSmart

Banjoxed wrote: »

Nice in theory, but in practice, a lot of the sector is made up of folks like me. I'm waiting until the point my repayment mortgage balance is less than the value of the property I own. In the meantime, I charge a fair rent, don't screw around with my tenant, and ensure any issues are dealt with promptly. And I make up the shortfall between the rent received and the mortgage payment every month and pay my mortgage on time and fully declare everything for income tax.

Those of us who are accidental landlords are not all screwing our tenants, or the banks, or anyone else.

A very valid point Banjoxed.

However,it is one which gets precious little column inches or airtime in comparison to images of Baliff's casting poor downtrodden tenants and their belongings onto the cold hard pavement.

The perception,aided and abetted by a suspiciously inactive succession of Governments,is that Landlordism is ok when run on an ad-hoc basis.

Landlords are being turned over and shafted every day by a succession of Street Savvy tenants,many of whom have developed a sideline in Tutoring others in the niceties of "Protective" legislation and how to avail fully of it.

It usually focuses on developing the ability Not To Blink until the last moment,then simply take a hike to a pre-arranged Next Place.

The greater accomodation shortage issue,continues to suffer from our inability to accurately define the market....we remain blighted by decades of 3-Bed Semi D's with a garden being the Blue-Collar Norm...leading to a Capital City becoming residentially empty at it's core.....All those nightly empty City Centre Georgian Residences,or worse still those which have been stuffed full of non-national,non-complaining tenants stand in mute testimony to a lack of ANY understanding of how a CITY functions...?

beauf

That because a 3 bed semi has a lot more room than a 1 or 2 bed shoebox in the city centre.

If you want people to live long term in the city you have to give them better/bigger apartments.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

It puts more people out renting. and bank will try to make as much money as they can on the deal. So while there's a shortage of housing they'll take full advantage of it. There will be no fire sale.

Quite possible....

My attention was drawn to this post on another forum,which raises some interesting issues....http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057185545

...although I'm unsure of where to begin ?

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

That because a 3 bed semi has a lot more room than a 1 or 2 bed shoebox in the city centre.

If you want people to live long term in the city you have to give them better/bigger apartments.

Agreed.

I find it particularly ironic,and not a little "Irish",that the developer who stands head & shoulders above the rest in this regard is none other than the regularlu demonized Mr Micheal Wallace TD.

It seems Mr Wallace,has an affinity for Italy,and bothered to look a little more closely at the setup there and elsewhere in Europe,which allowed literally billions of people to be born,raised and live complete fruitful lives in RENTED accomodation :eek:......How did the do it ?

Currently,all we appear to be doing is re-inventing the wheel and scratching our Ginger Celtic heads when the resultant octagon won't roll or steer smoothly.....:rolleyes:

beauf

I don't understand your point about Wallace.

Apartments and houses were in general bigger pre boom. You don't need to fly off and look at Italian football match Italian housing.

Black Swan

BarryBrack1 wrote: »

No probs..... delete me.... Only joined 2 say my piece. Can't figure out how 2 delete myself on your site. Thanks

MOD: Banned 1-week for failure to follow mod instructions, and continuing to discuss moderation in-thread.

realitykeeper

It is now six years since the recession started and still there have been very few evictions. People want to buy houses but the prices are being kept artificially high by the defaulters who are still occupying the properties they are not paying for. Why should young people who want to buy a new home have to borrow over the odds when houses are kept off the market in this way. This market manipulation also keeps rents high, so that keeps landlords happy at the expense of the poor tenants. It seems those who presently occupy houses while defaulting on their mortgages are the larger constituency which is why they are getting away with it. Perhaps it is time for evictions to start in earnest. A little heavy-handedness may be desirable. The gardai and a lawyer should accompany and assist the sheriffs and bailiffs. A good legal mind and a tazer & baton would be a great help - just in case there are any blackguards around trying to interfere.

beauf

Its a much bigger problem than evictions.

Farmer Pudsey

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is now six years since the recession started and still there have been very few evictions. People want to buy houses but the prices are being kept artificially high by the defaulters who are still occupying the properties they are not paying for. Why should young people who want to buy a new home have to borrow over the odds when houses are kept off the market in this way. This market manipulation also keeps rents high, so that keeps landlords happy at the expense of the poor tenants. It seems those who presently occupy houses while defaulting on their mortgages are the larger constituency which is why they are getting away with it. Perhaps it is time for evictions to start in earnest. A little heavy-handedness may be desirable. The gardai and a lawyer should accompany and assist the sheriffs and bailiffs. A good legal mind and a tazer & baton would be a great help - just in case there are any blackguards around trying to interfere.

The case you are making has been dealt with on this thread and on the thread below please read all and contribute then with any new theory.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057175872

Arthur Beesley

AlekSmart wrote: »

Agreed.

I find it particularly ironic,and not a little "Irish",that the developer who stands head & shoulders above the rest in this regard is none other than the regularlu demonized Mr Micheal Wallace TD.

It seems Mr Wallace,has an affinity for Italy,and bothered to look a little more closely at the setup there and elsewhere in Europe,which allowed literally billions of people to be born,raised and live complete fruitful lives in RENTED accomodation :eek:......How did the do it ?

Currently,all we appear to be doing is re-inventing the wheel and scratching our Ginger Celtic heads when the resultant octagon won't roll or steer smoothly.....:rolleyes:

beauf wrote: »

I don't understand your point about Wallace.

Apartments and houses were in general bigger pre boom. You don't need to fly off and look at Italian football match Italian housing.

Helps that he wasn't paying his taxes I guess.

Farmer Pudsey

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Helps that he wasn't paying his taxes I guess.

This was an issue at the end of the boom to try to keep his company going. Was he wrong yes but many business's did it those that survived are now employing and paying people and taxes. when thing's go wrong with a business you will try to keep it afloat, if his company had survived he would have paid his taex and penelty's. Believe it or not there are many company's with unpaid tax bills that the revenue are lenient with due to there inability to pay. If revenue demand the tax the company will fold and more will join the unemployed. In some cases to my understanding Revenue have set aside tax liability's as long as present taxes are up to date and hope to collect or partially collect down the line.

Glib one liners are not much of a contribution

AlekSmart

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Helps that he wasn't paying his taxes I guess.

Farmer Pudsey answers this point quite well I think.

I would most certainly not be a Mick Wallace supporter per se,nor would I row in behind many of his more off-the- shoulder numbers,however I firmly believe Mr Wallace is far more in-tune with the survival issue which bedevil the "Contributing Classes" than most other Oireachtas Members.

Whilst the likes of Deputies Daly and Flanagan have long colourful careers on the fringes of Irish Political activism,Wallace has been far more hands-on in physical labour terms,something I hold,is invaluable when it comes to UNDERSTANDING how ordinary people think.

I can remember,over the years which his Civil Engineering company worked for Dublin City Council,how Wallace himself was always to be found on his sites doing the Job himself,rather than supervising from a laptop,which currently appears to be the norm for Civil Works projects,with unsurprising results (Viz.Dun Leary Rathdown CC and the Bird Avenue,Clonskeagh "works" ).

So yea,given that the newly pervasive Revenue felt it worthwhile to "settle" their affairs with Wallaces Company,and that he paid his dues eventually,I'd still give him an oul preference vote,long before I'd risk any mark against Phil Hogan or his likes.

Robert McGrath

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

This was an issue at the end of the boom to try to keep his company going. Was he wrong yes but many business's did it those that survived are now employing and paying people and taxes. when thing's go wrong with a business you will try to keep it afloat, if his company had survived he would have paid his taex and penelty's. Believe it or not there are many company's with unpaid tax bills that the revenue are lenient with due to there inability to pay. If revenue demand the tax the company will fold and more will join the unemployed. In some cases to my understanding Revenue have set aside tax liability's as long as present taxes are up to date and hope to collect or partially collect down the line.

Glib one liners are not much of a contribution

I disagree.

Businesses that do not evade taxes go to the wall because they cannot compete with businesses that evade taxes. Tax evasion allows the perpetrator a lower cost base and therefore an unfair advantage. That's not fair.

AlekSmart

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I disagree.

Businesses that do not evade taxes go to the wall because they cannot compete with businesses that evade taxes. Tax evasion allows the perpetrator a lower cost base and therefore an unfair advantage. That's not fair.

It's for sure "Not Fair",but Farmer Pudsey,like it or not,outlines the reality of Commercial life.

The relationship between the Revenue authorities and Business is and laways has,been fraught,with even corporations of the highest repute having to deasl with payment and assessment "Issues" on a regular basis.

Oddly enough it's not a trait specific to Ireland,it's simply human nature..."Rendering unto Caesar all that is Caesar's" does not come naturally to anybody who is not actually Caesar.

Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue,the American IRS,Les Impot in France or whatever...there is a HUMAN resistance to Taxation.

Wallaces operation was,and afaik,still is,a hand's on operation,with it's principal playing a major role in day-to-day operations.
This is usually a common denominator in these Revenue vs xyz ltd cases.
The larger corporates have stand alone departments to stonewall and negotiate with the authorities,often ad nauseum until the actual payments have been well and profitably accounted for.
Companies such as Wallaces tend to use smaller Accountancy firms,perhaps Local,and as a result lose out on the often cosier "Professional" understandings which bloom between Revenue and the Larger Accounting Practices...;)

It's not particularly "fair" either,but for sure it's one of the reasonings behind Ireland Inc's push for Inward Foreign Investmnent...a smooth and efficient Tax régime....to echo the reported words of a former Financial Regulator..."Whatever ye think yerself,Willie " :rolleyes:

beauf

I think you're making a distinction where none exists. They are all doing the same thing at the end of the day.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

I think you're making a distinction where none exists. They are all doing the same thing at the end of the day.

Agreed,we are indeed....or we would if we had the opportunity ?

beauf

No not everyone does.

But there no distinction between two companies doing the same thing.

AlekSmart

beauf wrote: »

No not everyone does.

But there no distinction between two companies doing the same thing.

I'm not really making a distinction as such,kinda more in tune with Wallace's reasoning that's all.
Given a randon selection of commercially "successful" members of the Oirechtas,I'd still suggest Wallace would emerge at the top of the most compliant list (After a Long Period of Investigation)

After all the caterwaling about the Bankers and Politicians has died down,the remaining fact is that as we were/are a democracy,we supported these elements (often VERY decidedly) and are,to great degree,compliant in their decisions.

As for Wallace,he's no better or worse than the majority,but I'd have nore respect for his POV than the vast majority of stuff ploughed through on Oireachtas TV.