Residential tenancies bill 2016 proposals and discussion

markpb

Idbatterim wrote: »

so it appears nobody is impressed with this shambles of a governments "attempts" to solve this crisis! I put the attempts in brackets, because I believe for many reasons, they actually dont really want to solve it... Too many vested interests gain from it...

I suspect it's easier for them to introduce legislation than it is to come up with a plan to fix supply and agree the funding necessary to make that plan happen.

_Kaiser_

beauf wrote: »

I think this a major cause of the current crisis. Create jobs outside of Dublin, and it solves a lot of problems. That and the lack of social housing provision.

The issue is though that the companies creating these jobs DO want to be in Dublin, as do many of their employees. Dublin isn't competing with the likes of Cork and Galway - it's competing with other capital cities abroad.

The easy and only practical solution to this is to abolish the limits on building height (personally I think a few modern skyscrapers would do wonders for the image of the city as well as helping to deal with the current crisis) and rezoning the plenty of land within/just outside the M50 for residential development.

karloseqm

There should be small tax up to normal market value determinated by government every year and if landlords go higher that then charge them 90% tax. That's some joke how government is ignoring that problem. Another thing is that refugees getting free house car TV and everything and there is alot of homeless people with no support.
Is that democracy? equal for everyone!? Democracy is even worst then communism where there at least everyone had the same goods.

Kapips88

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Does anyone want to hazard s guess as to when this will take effect?

I have an apartment grossly under rental market rate however I can't increase until July 2017 due to the 2 year rule. So if this new rule comes into play am I forced to limit my increase to 4% per year even if its current under market rate by 30% +?

Punished for being too nice?

beauf

I think you can incentivise companies to locate outside of Dublin. Likewise national facilities, don't all need to be in Dublin.

Instead we are encouraging companies into Dublin, and dragging 2/3 of the population to Dublin for many services.

Considering the exodus on a Friday out of Dublin, and every evening I think we assume not everyone wants to live in Dublin.

karloseqm

There is no need for rent increase everyone should be able to buy house not only rich people, banks destroyed everything because they were so greedy and now we have to pay for this system, put them all to jail!.

senordingdong

beauf wrote: »

Considering the exodus on a Friday out of Dublin, and every evening I think we assume not everyone wants to live in Dublin.

I disagree. I think that these people
commute because they can't afford to live in Dublin, but would be happy to live closer to work.

_Kaiser_

Plot twist - FF say no ...

Party sources say figure should be 2% and express concern over exclusion of commuter belt

notahappycamper

Say you are renting a property for below the market rent i.e. €970 vs. €1200 - €1400 I presume you still have to abide by the 4% rule? In other words you can't increase it to say €1200 as it is below the market rent currently?

_Kaiser_

senordingdong wrote: »

I disagree. I think that these people
Commute because they can't afford to live in Dublin, but would happy to live closer to wlrkr.

Agree.. look at the make-up of populations in commuter towns. Huge community of Dubs who are only living there because they couldn't afford to rent/buy closer to home but are still commuting to Dublin every day.

I don't just mean Kildare/Meath either but as far afield as Laois, Carlow, north Louth etc.

beauf

senordingdong wrote: »

I disagree. I think that these people
Commute because they can't afford to live in Dublin, but would happy to live closer to wlrkr.

That doesn't explain why so many leave at the weekend do go "home".

listermint

notahappycamper wrote: »

Say you are renting a property for below the market rent i.e. €970 vs. €1200 - €1400 I presume you still have to abide by the 4% rule? In other words you can't increase it to say €1200 as it is below the market rent currently?

Why if you are happy to rent it out now at 970 would this suddenly want to make you lash the rent up though?

note the term happy with current level and good tenant...

ongarite

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Plot twist - FF say no ...

Meh, too populist. Define the commuter belt for Dublin..
Is it as far out as Portlaoise and Drogheda or just within the Dublin bus routes into East Kildare, Meath or Wicklow.

beauf

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Agree.. look at the make-up of populations in commuter towns. Huge community of Dubs who are living there because they couldn't afford to rent/buy closer to home but are still commuting to Dublin every day.

I don't just mean Kildare/Meath either but as far afield as Laois, Carlow, north Louth etc.

That existed even before Dublin was unaffordable.

listermint

beauf wrote: »

That doesn't explain why so many leave at the weekend do go "home".

Any stats on this? The motorways seem to suggest otherwise.

_Kaiser_

ongarite wrote: »

Meh, too populist. Define the commuter belt for Dublin..
Is it as far out as Portlaoise and Drogheda or just within the Dublin bus routes into East Kildare, Meath or Wicklow.

Depends on how realistic you want to be..

At this stage certainly north Louth, Carlow/Laois, Meath/Westmeath, and Wicklow would be included ... if you're being realistic. Just look at the inbound/outbound traffic on the M1/3/4/7/11 every day.

_Kaiser_

beauf wrote: »

That existed even before Dublin was unaffordable.

Yep from the last time this happened a decade ago.

We've come full circle and nothing has been learned.

irish coldplayer

The issue is on the supply side this does absolutely nothing to address that if anything it will lead to an increased shortage and poorer quality housing stock.
Also whats to stop a landlord now requesting "key money" at the start of a lease akin to the practice in the commercial sector to make up for the reduction in market rent?

senordingdong

beauf wrote: »

That doesn't explain why so many leave at the weekend do go "home".

In my experience, a great deal of the 'going home for the weekend' crowd are young professionals who work and rent in Dublin but travel to their home county and family home for the weekend.
Including students and young public servants.

Baby01032012

The_Conductor wrote: »

There are 155 amendments to the bill- but Damien English is brining it before the Dáil this afternoon, and the commencement date on it is next Monday the 19th of December. It is expected that both the government and opposition will support the measures.

As the Part IV four year term end July next year I can terminate the tenancy and re advertise it at market rate. Although by then the other proposals may have come into play i.e. The 10 year security of tenure rules.

Idbatterim

Graham wrote: »

It's less of an observation and more of a conspiracy theory.

is it though? I mean sure I don't have noonan and co on tape stating such, is that what you want? But I understand why they would do it. Morally it is a disgrace though in my opinion. Oh and this is coming from a Begrudging FG voter before I'm accused of being Daly, boyd Barrett or Paul Murphy!

beauf

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Yep from the last time this happened a decade ago.

We've come full circle and nothing has been learned.

I don't think the reasons are the same. Now Dublin is un-affordable. Before for many it was a quality of life issue.

I don't think everyone wants to live in Dublin. Thats a very Dublin centric view.

beauf

Baby01032012 wrote: »

As the Part IV four year term end July next year I can terminate the tenancy and re advertise it at market rate. Although by then the other proposals may have come into play i.e. The 10 year security of tenure rules.

What will happen will be the same as Berlin. No one will be able to move. The market will stagnate even further.

Atari Jaguar

Instead of rent control maybe the government should stop taking half of the rent away from landlords. The fact a landlord renting an apartment at 1600 p/m only takes away 50-60% of that is a ****ing disgrace. Why would anyone want to be a landlord at that rate like?

_Kaiser_

beauf wrote: »

I don't think the reasons are the same. Now Dublin is un-affordable. Before for many it was a quality of life issue.

I don't think everyone wants to live in Dublin. Thats a very Dublin centric view.

Disagree.. back in the Good Times people likewise couldn't afford to buy suitable/desirable housing in Dublin and so moved out into what is now known as the commuter belt counties.

The CAUSE was different alright.. back then it was cheap credit. Now it's no supply/spiralling rents/property prices but the effects are the same.

_Kaiser_

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

Instead of rent control maybe the government should stop taking half of the rent away from landlords. The fact a landlord renting an apartment at 1600 p/m only takes away 50-60% of that is a ****ing disgrace. Why would anyone want to be a landlord at that rate like?

I don't think FG want private/small-time LL's. It doesn't fit with their love of "big business"

We've already seen that they're more than happy to promote a situation where foreign investment funds snap up large blocks of housing and rent it out instead.

Idbatterim

markpb wrote: »

I suspect it's easier for them to introduce legislation than it is to come up with a plan to fix supply and agree the funding necessary to make that plan happen.

but we are going around in circles. We know what the answers are. Higher density and allow cheaper to construct units, that is the serious solution. Not the joke proposals from coveney. There is office space under construction planned for Dublin which will accommodate insane amounts of workers, barely any residential construction is taking place. I'd really like to know where these workers will live and ow they will commute. On the third world public transport system is the answer I suspect...

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

I'm in the same boat with a property that was last reviewed in summer 2015. The law if changed affect landlords in a totally arbitrary way.

That law came in in November in 2015. Why not do what my landlord did and up the rent 2 weeks after the law came in?

irelandrover

listermint wrote: »

Why if you are happy to rent it out now at 970 would this suddenly want to make you lash the rent up though?

note the term happy with current level and good tenant...

Because when that good tenant leaves then you can still only increase it by 4%.

handlemaster

where their social housing going to come from ? the private sector will not be jumping to become BTL landlords, no control any more for landlords on how to run their businesses