Life for rent

MidnightMurphy

Seeing as the issue of rent and housing is all over the news at the moment I thought I'd share my personal thoughts about my own situation.


Mod Edit: Please post your thoughts, not your blog.

Michael D Not Higgins

Don't know where you get your opinion on the RTB from, but it's exceedingly pro-tenant, contrary to your blog. The government are just about to limit rent increases in Dublin too to 4%, so don't see how they're on the lookout for landlords either.

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The government are just about to limit rent increases in Dublin too to 4%, so don't see how they're on the lookout for landlords either.

The popular misconception that government is looking after landlords is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment accompanied with the usual like-fest.

Michael D Not Higgins

Graham wrote: »

The popular misconception that government is looking after landlords is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment accompanied with the usual like-fest.

There's more money long term in serving their day job and getting votes than serving the side job of letting. Protecting landlord's interests doesn't get votes.

MidnightMurphy

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Don't know where you get your opinion on the RTB from, but it's exceedingly pro-tenant, contrary to your blog. The government are just about to limit rent increases in Dublin too to 4%, so don't see how they're on the lookout for landlords either.

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

They obviously are, have you not been reading the news?

Unfortunately many of those 2nd homers provide a fair sized chunk of the rental market. Driving them into the wall probably isn't the ideal way of encouraging the delivery of rental properties.

MidnightMurphy

Graham wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

They obviously are, have you not been reading the news?

Unfortunately many of those 2nd homers provide a fair sized chunk of the rental market.  Driving them into the wall probably isn't the ideal way of encouraging the delivery of rental properties.

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

c montgomery

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

Maybe people should take responsibility for their own housing needs and stop whinging to the government at any opportunity.

50000 units by end of 2017!!! Won't happen btm 2020!!

Michael D Not Higgins

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

This has nothing to do with the criticism I gave for your blog post.

Of course the government need to build social housing, of course they need to stimulate the market to encourage building the supply that's lacking, of course they need to do all these things, but it has nothing to do with your moan about the RTB and government being pro landlord. They're demonstrably not.

amcalester

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

And I'm sure that most landlords would agree with you on this but it works both ways, if you want private landlords to provide (social) housing then their needs also need to be considered. The obvious example being quicker evictions for non-paying tenants.

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business.

Not many business are subject to an ongoing and constantly changing barrage of government imposed costs.

c montgomery

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

They are running their business, there's very few properties for rent so it seems like business is good.

It's not landlords fault that supply is limited

amcalester

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

Increase supply and rents will fall, have better legislation protecting both landlords and tenants and everyone will benefit.

Continuing to hit landlords pockets will cause landlords to sell up reducing supply and driving up rents. Everyone loses.

I'm a renter btw.

MidnightMurphy

c montgomery wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

4% per year for 3 years, on top of already unaffordable rent? I don't see how that's going to help. And all it will do is drive up prices in the neighbourhoods not deemed pressure zones.
An immediate massive government funded social / affordable house building project needs to start.
50,000 additional housing units ready to be inhabited by December 31st 2017 will be a good start.
Landlords who cannot make a profit on their 2nd homes should be of no concern to anyone. They out to sell their houses to the government who can then lease them out at affordable rates.
Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market. The housing crisis in Ireland needs direct government intervention. And people who own 2nd homes for rent should be way down the list of priorities,

Maybe people should take responsibility for their own housing needs and stop whinging to the government at any opportunity.

50000 units by end of 2017!!! Won't happen btm 2020!!

So you think people working fulltime not being able to afford rent and unable to find homes are whiners?

If there are no houses available how do you propose they take 'responsibility' for their housing needs?
Ah I see - because NAMA is a state agency then you think that occupying empty NAMA buildings is fair and reasonable?

Glad you clarified?

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Ah I see - because NAMA is a state agency then you think that occupying empty NAMA buildings is fair and reasonable?

Glad you clarified?

errrr. What?

murphaph

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market.

Food and medicines are even more important but the market decides what they cost. Even your GP with his €60 for 5 minutes is unregulated. But landlords have always been popular bogeymen in Ireland. We haven't quite gotten over the fact the British are gone.

MidnightMurphy

c montgomery wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

They are running their business, there's very few properties for rent so it seems like business is good.

It's not landlords fault that supply is limited

But housing is too essential a requirement of a civilised society to be left to the devices of the market,. #
Which is why direct government intervention is essential - not tinkering with the problem.
the problem is the housing supply.
The cause of the problem is the free market,.
Governmnet intervention is needed.

MidnightMurphy

murphaph wrote: »

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Housing is too important an issue to leave to the whim of the market.

Food and medicines are even more important but the market decides what they cost. Even your GP with his €60 for 5 minutes is unregulated. But landlords have always been popular bogeymen in Ireland. We haven't quite gotten over the fact the British are gone.

The market does not decide what medicine costs - in the US the pharma market is unregulated and medicine is way more expensive there. It is regulated here.

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

Graham

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

You realise it's not an either/or proposition. It's quite possible to find a solution that's in the interests of both sides. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, investor buys property with an expectation of a reasonable return, tenant rents it.

pilly

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

The market does not decide what medicine costs - in the US the pharma market is unregulated and medicine is way more expensive there. It is regulated here.

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

You absolutely are calling LL's the bogeyman, in fact your blog calls them cowboys.

I'm both a tenant and LL and know for a fact that RTB is totally pro-tenant. It's more of an organisation that fights for tenants rights than a body of arbitration which it should be.

75% of LL's in Ireland are private owners but this won't last for long the way things are going.

I'd be very happy if the government offered to buy my house at a good price. But not gonna happen. What will happen is I give up renting it out because it's too much stress and hassle, let the bank have it bank, it'll sit empty for 5 or 6 years while all that goes on and then maybe the bank will sell it to a private individual or maybe they'll sell it to a vulture fund.

amcalester

Graham wrote: »

You realise it's not an either/or proposition. It's quite possible to find a solution that's in the interests of both sides. It should be a mutually beneficial relationship, investor buys property with an expectation of a reasonable return, tenant rents it.

This needs to be more highlighted to people.

A landlord tenant relationship should be mutually beneficial and any action by the government should strengthen this relationship to the benefit of both parties.

At the minute though both parties are looking at the other thinking are you going to screw me over. The tenant fears double digit rent increases and the withholding of a deposit if they move out, and the landlord is afraid that the tenant will stop paying rent/destroy the property and leave thousands in arrears/damages behind when the landlord eventually recovers possession of the property.

Graham

amcalester wrote: »

At the minute though both parties are looking at the other thinking are you going to screw me over. The tenant fears double digit rent increases and the withholding of a deposit if they move out, and the landlord is afraid that the tenant will stop paying rent/destroy the property and leave thousands in arrears/damages behind when the landlord eventually recovers possession of the property.

+1

a though process that's only being encouraged by one-sided government actions. I can't see it changing unless/until somebody realises (and has the balls to say) it's having a negative effect on supply.

PraxisPete

There won't be a deluge of properties on the market after this bill. The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties. They will also get an additional 4% until the crises is fixed. I can't say I feel too bad for them.

Gmol

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

If they cannot run their business then they should not be in that business. The government should be willing to pay them a fair price for their 2nd homes and then to use those houses as social / affordable housing.
The free market has created the housing crisis - it cannot be trusted to fix this. It is too important.

Not a landlord but should it not be the same for people renting them as well?

As someone said there needs to be a mutually beneficial solution rather than driving one or the other side to the wall

PraxisPete

PraxisPete wrote: »

There won't be a deluge of new properties on the market after this bill. The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties. They will also get an additional 4% until the crises is fixed. I can't say I feel too bad for them.

Any landlord getting the current market rent is doing pretty well, but what percentage of properties are let at the current market rate?

Graham

PraxisPete wrote: »

There won't be a deluge of new properties on the market after this bill. The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties. They will also get an additional 4% until the crises is fixed. I can't say I feel too bad for them.

Keep in mind that the underlying value/cost of the property has increased. A 4% increase isn't great if the underlying value/cost of the asset has increased 25%.

Such disparity is only likely to encourage existing landlords to sell and future landlords to back away.

PraxisPete

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any landlord getting the current market rent is doing pretty well, but what percentage of properties are let at the current market rate?

I'm in my early 30's and almost everyone I know is renting and almost everyone is paying market rates after they got their rent hikes before the 2 year freeze. Anecdotal evidence but I'd put it at about 90%.

PraxisPete

Graham wrote: »

Keep in mind that the underlying value/cost of the property has increased. A 4% increase isn't great if the underlying value/cost of the asset has increased 25%.

Such disparity is only likely to encourage existing landlords to sell and future landlords to back away.

Will it though? We'll know after a few months if on my street and the surrounding area which is largely inhabited by renters suddenly has lots of properties for sale. I don't see it happening.

amcalester

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

But housing is too essential a requirement of a civilised society to be left to the devices of the market,. #
Which is why direct government intervention is essential - not tinkering with the problem.
the problem is the housing supply.
The cause of the problem is the free market,.
Governmnet intervention is needed.

Should government intervention also include allowing landlords recover the actual costs of damage done to property by tenants?

If you want a fully regulated property sector then its only logical to include this too.

Graham

PraxisPete wrote: »

Will it though? We'll know after a few months if on my street and the surrounding area which is largely inhabited by renters suddenly has lots of properties for sale. I don't see it happening.

It will become apparent over the next 2 years how many landlords are leaving the market and how many are joining.

PraxisPete

PraxisPete wrote: »

I'm in my early 30's and almost everyone I know is renting and almost everyone is paying market rates after they got their rent hikes before the 2 year freeze. Anecdotal evidence but I'd put it at about 90%.

I'm renting out an apartment at well below market rate, to a nice couple in their early thirties, going to sell it next year if the market doesn't collapse, as I'm finally no longer in negative equity.

I really hope someone will buy it, will be going at an asking price of around 30% below the 2004 price new build price.

Ray Palmer

PraxisPete wrote: »

I'm in my early 30's and almost everyone I know is renting and almost everyone is paying market rates after they got their rent hikes before the 2 year freeze. Anecdotal evidence but I'd put it at about 90%.

You are looking at a particular social group of people most likely living in central location. As a landlord I don't want to put anybody out on the street just to get more money. When the government start increasing cost and tying to make me keep a preferential rate going from one tenant to the next I go crazy.
So a tenant of 25 years who was already getting a reduced rent comes to me to say the rent allowance has been cut and could I reduce the rent I do. Then I get PRSI added, insurance and all other costs go up. Not only that as I am self employed I also get an extra 1% tax for no reason at all. So when rent allowance caps soften there was an increase that didn't cover the amount of the increased costs. So when this tenant does move out I still have to rent out this place to them at this price!
So you are so wrong about max rents for everyone. Actual just let another property below market rates as they just had a child and were tenants of a friend.
I am about to be punished by the government for being nice. I may very well sell and leave the country. I certainly will not invest anything into my properties now unless it is to remove a tenant. Wonder what "extensively" actually is for refurb.

davindub

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

The market does not decide what medicine costs - in the US the pharma market is unregulated and medicine is way more expensive there. It is regulated here.

I'm not saying landlords are bogeymen, but the government's priority needs to be to resolve the housing crisis -- you agree I hope that this is more important than protecting landlords' interests.

If you want to complain about who the government favors.....it's the big developers. Why they do I'll let you hazard a guess but I've heard that there have been accusations that some politicians may have benefited from the Nama deals

athtrasna

Mod note

Crossing serious lines into politics folks and there are already a number of threads discussing this week's developments.

newacc2015

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

But housing is too essential a requirement of a civilised society to be left to the devices of the market,. #
Which is why direct government intervention is essential - not tinkering with the problem.
the problem is the housing supply.
The cause of the problem is the free market,.
Governmnet intervention is needed.

No one disputes housing is a need. If you study leaving cert economics, you learn a need is something which life can not be sustained. A want is anything else. In your blog post you really discussing wants, which you think are a need.

You are correct that we need housing, but why should the state provide a large cheap apartment as you dont like living with others. That is a want mate. Everyone in Dublin wants a cheap, massive apartment in the middle of a nice part of Dublin 2. That doesnt mean the Government should step in and hand it to them because they feel entitled to it. The fact you had to share an apartment in Amsterdam seems to suggest that is the norm there. Yet in Dublin you expect a massive cheap one bed apartment funded by the state?

Your blog post is an opinion piece thinly veiled as fact. The rental industry is highly regulated, which you acknowledge yet at the same time don't realise it ie realising your apartment is regulated that the landlord cant hike up the rent, then a few paragraphs later claim the industry is unregulated. Which is it?

The Government needs to provide social housing. Affordable housing for people who need it, not people who believe a massive apartment on their own as they dont want to share who think its a human right.

I personally dont think it is the state job to provide massive amounts of cheap one bedroom apartments in Dublin as people dont like sharing. It is absurd. Look at what people had to deal with in the 1960s. They were living in housing without heating, internal plumbing and basically living in a single room with dozens of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAKnI9GYjRs

When did this nation become so obsessed with entitlement?

Boater123

A quote from your blog:

" There is a Residential Tenancies Board which claims to look after tenants’ rights. As it run and self-regulated by a gang of landlords, it’s about as useful as a box of hair"

Am I missing some sort of humour or sarcasm here?

Serious like, no messin' now, is this your actual opinion?

c montgomery

Boater123 wrote: »

A quote from your blog:

" There is a Residential Tenancies Board which claims to look after tenants’ rights. As it run and self-regulated by a gang of landlords, it’s about as useful as a box of hair"

Am I missing some sort of humour or sarcasm here?

Serious like, no messin' now, is this your actual opinion?

The OP's naivety, ignorance and prejudice are clearly on view.
People expect everything these days but don't know the value of anything.

If you dont want to rent save money and buy a house. If you can't afford a house where u want to live buy somewhere you can afford.

MidnightMurphy

c montgomery wrote: »

The OP's naivety, ignorance and prejudice are clearly on view.
People expect everything these days but don't know the value of anything.

If you dont want to rent save money and buy a house. If you can't afford a house where u want to live buy somewhere you can afford.

Nope.

Where do you suggest people live, while saving for their house, while living and working in Dublin when they come from Mayo? I mean there's no jobs in Mayo, so you're definitely not suggesting that they move home? How is it possible to save for a mortgage while rents are so extortionate compared to salaries?

And remember there is an extremely limited supply of affordable places to rent.

There are no affordable houses for sale for working people.

Rents are unaffordable.

The market has failed the working population.

It's time for government intervention to resolve it.

Idbatterim

just took a read of your article there op. I know only too well what you mean about needing your own space etc. Before I read your piece, I was just thinking to myself earlier, at current market rent, living on your own in Dublin, an average apartment in an average location, is only viable if A) you are prepared to blow a staggering sum on rent live in a kip, in which you will still be paying high rent!

Why can I not rent a recent built apartment / studio, that are far cheaper to construct, that are on offer in every other bloody european city?!!! These p**cks from councillors to politicians live on another planet! If there was any intention to actually solve the crisis, allowing way higher densities and far cheaper to construct units, which would suit both developers and tenants / owners, would be going ahead...

MidnightMurphy

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

The market has failed the working population.

Incorrect. The market is set by the working population.

the_syco

PraxisPete wrote: »

The vast majority of landlords know they are getting extremely good rent for their properties. More than any landlord has ever gotten for similar properties.

Ironically, I wonder if they have less in their pocket than they ever had after tax?

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

It's time for government intervention to resolve it.

Eliminating the max height of apartment blocks would ensure more people can fit into Dublin, and supply and demand would lessen.

MidnightMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Incorrect. The market is set by the working population.

But if the market can't house the working population - which it can't - then clearly it is failing.

If you work full time then in a civilised society, you should be able to afford reasonable accommodation.

But there is no housing.

Isn't this a national emergency?

murphaph

It's not a free market when the state tells buyers and sellers they need dual aspect, minimum m² apartments. A student or young professional would be happy with an affordable 20m² studio with single aspect in a high rise. Students and young professionals are blocking accommodation they neither need nor want to be paying for. But somehow it's always the landlord's fault.

Barely Hedged

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Nope.

Where do you suggest people live, while saving for their house, while living and working in Dublin when they come from Mayo? I mean there's no jobs in Mayo, so you're definitely not suggesting that they move home? How is it possible to save for a mortgage while rents are so extortionate compared to salaries?

And remember there is an extremely limited supply of affordable places to rent.

There are no affordable houses for sale for working people.

Rents are unaffordable.

The market has failed the working population.

It's time for government intervention to resolve it.

What's all this affordable and unaffordable terminology being thrown around? It's all subjective and opportunity cost based. It's a sign of a weak argument

c montgomery

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Nope.

Where do you suggest people live, while saving for their house, while living and working in Dublin when they come from Mayo? I mean there's no jobs in Mayo, so you're definitely not suggesting that they move home? How is it possible to save for a mortgage while rents are so extortionate compared to salaries?

And remember there is an extremely limited supply of affordable places to rent.

There are no affordable houses for sale for working people.

Rents are unaffordable.

The market has failed the working population.

It's time for government intervention to resolve it.

Affordable housing!! Let's call it what it is, subsidised housing. Lots of people want a beautiful house in the suburbs but don't want to pay full whack for it.

I empathise with those paying high rents and I think the ability to pay high rent should be taken as ability to pay a mortgage to make getting mortgage easier.

What would people be happy to pay for a 3 bed semi in Dublin? Do people want access to more money?

davindub

c montgomery wrote: »

Affordable housing!! Let's call it what it is, subsidised housing. Lots of people want a beautiful house in the suburbs but don't want to pay full whack for it.

I empathise with those paying high rents and I think the ability to pay high rent should be taken as ability to pay a mortgage to make getting mortgage easier.

What would people be happy to pay for a 3 bed semi in Dublin? Do people want access to more money?

I don't see affordable housing as subsidised, it is actually just the developer being forced to release units with less profit than the others.

What I see as truly dangerous is the amount of council houses they intend to build. These are paid for by the taxpayer but people are forced to go onto waiting lists because house prices are so high.

Graham

davindub wrote: »

I don't see affordable housing as subsidised, it is actually just the developer being forced to release units with less profit than the others.

If a developer is forced to supply a percentage of a development at cost, at a loss, or at a reduced profit, it is the full-price purchasers that are providing the subsidy for the affordable units.

newacc2015

MidnightMurphy wrote: »

Nope.

Where do you suggest people live, while saving for their house, while living and working in Dublin when they come from Mayo? I mean there's no jobs in Mayo, so you're definitely not suggesting that they move home? How is it possible to save for a mortgage while rents are so extortionate compared to salaries?

And remember there is an extremely limited supply of affordable places to rent.

There are no affordable houses for sale for working people.

Rents are unaffordable.

The market has failed the working population.

It's time for government intervention to resolve it.

Let me get this straight, you want the Government to provide affordable housing for working people who feel they should be entitled to an affordable apartments as they dont want to live with others?

Do you not take any responsibility of the situation you are in? You have chosen to rent a 1 bedroom apartment at the premium of a houseshare, as you dont like living with others. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for your lifestyle choices? If you want cheaper housing to save for mortgage, live in a house share. If you lived in any other city in the developed world, you would pretty much be told the same.

Can I ask did the Dutch Government hand you a massive 1 bedroom apartment on a dime for you to save for a mortgage? I am getting the impression the answer is no, yet you expect the taxpayer here to do that for you.

Maybe people should just expect home ownership is not for them. Some people dont want to make the sacrifices to make it happen ie refusing to live in a houseshare to save for a mortgage.

ArnieSilvia

The root cause has been mentioned here but not picked up yet - people coming from Mayo, Donegal etc. See what's happening on N4, N7 in the Sunday's evening hours - and reg plates of cars coming in.

Up to 2008 rents were crazy. As a result of recession, lots of migrants left Dublin leaving vacuum and driving rents down.

When I came to Dublin in 2011, the rent was 1050 for 3 bed townhouse, year later we rented lovely penthouse apt for 850 for 2 years. All the time saving and anticipating change.
When we saw that rents shoot up in neighbouring properties, we knew that low prices won't last long and we bought a house to keep payments at similar level - 1050 per month.

Today we could rent our house for 2k easily.

So the answer to your rant is - you're late in the game. To keep on top you need to think ahead of all the crowd rather than demand someone to provide things for you.

I'm currently moving out of Dublin because it become unliveable. And it won't change as it did in 2008 because it's not foreign migrants who came this time. And this movement of young workforce caused "brain drain" from rest of Ireland, which is heading down, towns getting less busy, businesses closing etc, adding to the damage.

I'm planning moving out shortly. I don't want to be spending an hour getting 10 km's to work or to the nearest shop. Too many people live here in overcrowded accommodation, without facilities or roads built for these volumes of people in the first place causing all this mess.

Ray Palmer

ArnieSilvia wrote: »

I'm currently moving out of Dublin because it become unliveable. And it won't change as it did in 2008 because it's not foreign migrants who came this time. And this movement of young workforce caused "brain drain" from rest of Ireland, which is heading down, towns getting less busy, businesses closing etc, adding to the damage.

I'm planning moving out shortly. I don't want to be spending an hour getting 10 km's to work or to the nearest shop. Too many people live here in overcrowded accommodation, without facilities or roads built for these volumes of people in the first place causing all this mess.

I find this a mixture of strange statements. Dublin has always attracted workers from the rest of Ireland. Foreign workers coming to Dublin had an effect but it was no where near the standard influx of other people within the island.

If you have to travel 10k to the nearest shop in Dublin you must be living in a pretty rural spot which is not your standard Dublin dwelling. If you can get 2k rent for that I would be surprised. If it takes an hour to drive that distance to get to work why would you drive it would be 25 minutes by bicycle at a slow pace.

I think people really underestimate the changes in society for the requirements on rental property. Families are simply not staying together so that has added the requirement for more property. A father who is forced out of a property has to get a property with a place for the child to stay if he wants shared custody. That is now two properties where one would have done before. More people staying single has an impact too. Property in Dublin is underused mostly with many Dublin suburban family homes being occupied by 1 or 2 retired people.

ArnieSilvia

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I find this a mixture of strange statements. Dublin has always attracted workers from the rest of Ireland. Foreign workers coming to Dublin had an effect but it was no where near the standard influx of other people within the island.

If you have to travel 10k to the nearest shop in Dublin you must be living in a pretty rural spot which is not your standard Dublin dwelling. If you can get 2k rent for that I would be surprised. If it takes an hour to drive that distance to get to work why would you drive it would be 25 minutes by bicycle at a slow pace.

I think people really underestimate the changes in society for the requirements on rental property. Families are simply not staying together so that has added the requirement for more property. A father who is forced out of a property has to get a property with a place for the child to stay if he wants shared custody. That is now two properties where one would have done before. More people staying single has an impact too. Property in Dublin is underused mostly with many Dublin suburban family homes being occupied by 1 or 2 retired people.

Well, I refer to last 10 years as it's most relevant. I stand by my opinion that during the boom work was everywhere, now it's been concentrated in Dublin (sectors have changed from building to IT etc). IMO housing prices were reasonable around 2011-2014, rents went mad only in most recent years after economy picked up and people started coming in. But they came too late. And rent inflation wasn't followed up by wage inflation unfortunately.

Just to clarify as I double checked, 15km's exactly from my house to the place of my work (both Dublin suburbs) was taking me an hour if I left at 8 and 45 mins if I left at 7.30. As for shopping, the (only) road leading to local supermarket is at standstill most of the time, can't get in, can't get out etc. It's not far away, it's the traffic that got mad over last few years.

As for cycling, I don't think this is a viable solution if you are wearing a suit for work or if you need to do shopping for the whole family. I cycle for pleasure on nice cycle routes in France, you can cycle for work, in the rain, in the cold and in the dark yourself. I did my share of it, thanks.