€700 million a year given to private landlords.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

That might help limit the concentrations of specific age demographics being concentrated into new developments.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Asking someone in their 60s or 70s to up sticks and move house for the sake of a few bob is grand, in theory, but doomed to failure, in my opinion.


People get used to their shops, pubs, bingo, neighbours, parks, supermarkets, bus routes etc. It would want to be a pretty big incentive to convince someone to move out of their gaff of 30+ years and start afresh.

Graham

Being discussed over here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057959412

sk8board

amcalester wrote: »

That is a possibility, but with the make up of landlords in Ireland owning mostly 1 or 2 properties I think that is unlikely.

The majority will either sell up, which appears to be happening,or lower the rent/accept HAP.

There’s a bunch of points coming up since I commented earlier -
Firstly, HAPs definitely lags the market rate.
In my case, in two semi-Ds I have 2 different HAP families, one on €800 payment for a €1200 rent and another on €1120 for €1300 rent.
The market in those areas is now around €1,750.

A better measure of rental levels is yield - my current blended yield on all properties is 6.7%. All pre-tax obviously.

Now, an important point quoted above - it can’t be overlooked that 65% of the 170,000 landlords in Ireland have one property. These are not really landlords as we know.

Those owners need to be REPLACED in the market and not removed, as the market can’t handle the loss of rented property.

Now for the controversial bit - all those one-property landlords need to be replaced by professional landlords - and than means either a REIT, or perhaps allowing LLs with 3+ properties to form companies - all in return for higher standards and accountability.

The market as it is is broken for everyone and that’s simply a fact.

beauf

sk8board wrote: »

...Now for the controversial bit - all those one-property landlords need to be replaced by professional landlords - and than means either a REIT, or perhaps allowing LLs with 3+ properties to form companies - all in return for higher standards and accountability....

They've been doing that for a long time now. Hence the 'Tyrrelstown' amendment. because their sole aim to drive max profit out of the property. Which is why they generally are targeting the high end of the market. Driving rents higher. As they buy new rentals not subject to RPZ.

So you want even higher rents.

sk8board

beauf wrote: »

They've been doing that for a long time now. Hence the 'Tyrrelstown' amendment. because their sole aim to drive max profit out of the property. Which is why they generally are targeting the high end of the market. Driving rents higher. As they buy new rentals not subject to RPZ.

So you want even higher rents.

Tyrrellstown ammendment prevented mass evictions for the purpose of selling, it didn’t set rental market rates.

property is an investment market, just like any other. It’s the HAP scheme that brought the social housing issues to our doors in 2012.

What we have is a rental market full of renters who can’t afford the rent, renting houses from owners who don’t want to be landlords.

Fix that, and we’re making progress

beauf

Selling was means to get tenants out. Then they say they can't sell, refurbish and rent at max rate.

What you have is a Govt who doesn't want to fix the housing crisis. Fix that and you're making progress.

That said they systematically destroyed it. Not sure why they would U turn on it now.

the_syco

sk8board wrote: »

Now for the controversial bit - all those one-property landlords need to be replaced by professional landlords - and than means either a REIT, or perhaps allowing LLs with 3+ properties to form companies - all in return for higher standards and accountability.

Professional landlords will drive up the max rent every year. That's something you don't seem to get. Current accidental landlords will try to keep a good tenant. Professional landlords won't care.

sk8board

the_syco wrote: »

Professional landlords will drive up the max rent every year. That's something you don't seem to get. Current accidental landlords will try to keep a good tenant. Professional landlords won't care.

a good landlord will very rarely put up the rent on a good sitting tenant.
And remember that the only professional landlords currently are the REITs - the other 170,000 of us are taxed as PAYE - so every landlord is effectively an amateur and taxed to the hilt.

You also assume incorrectly that the market can somehow keep climbing to the sky and defy basic economics

beauf

Max rent is the max rent the market and property will bear. That isn't always up. Rents rise and fall.

Grumpypants

Only the shinners could spin providing social housing a bad thing.

Considering most of that property is rented at a discount the government are getting about a billion euro worth of housing for 700 million, absolute bargain.

That makes it one of the few government departments not wasting tax payers money.

Then they get half back in tax. The last 350 is paying down the countries bank debt (good for everyone), investing in small local businesses (which all pay VAT and income tax).

Magnatu

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

NAMA offered a large block of apartments in tallaght to SDCC for use for social housing at a very good price.

SDCC refused on the basis that they didn't want to have a non mixed social and private development.
.

If govt had continued to provide actual social housing it would have been more difficult to justify the planned massive increase in payments to private landlords.

Grumpypants wrote: »

Only the shinners could spin providing social housing a bad thing.
The last 350 is paying down the countries bank debt (good for everyone), investing in small local businesses (which all pay VAT and income tax).

By the way I have no party affiliatation or connection to Sinn Fein
Again with the alturistic claims for getting these massive sums. In US they used to refer to this as trickle down economics. Give more money to the wealthy and they will spend it locally or pay it back in capital gains tax. I wonder did Iris Reit spend the €19 million profit they made from HAP scam alone last year in the local economy.

the_syco

sk8board wrote: »

a good landlord will very rarely put up the rent on a good sitting tenant.

I have already just said that;

the_syco wrote: »

Current accidental landlords will try to keep a good tenant.

sk8board wrote: »

You also assume incorrectly that the market can somehow keep climbing to the sky and defy basic economics

Currently, there is little supply, and high demand. Thus people will continue to pay silly sums of money to live in shoeboxes. Increases will occur until either supply of vacant units increases, or demand drops due to a bust.

antoinolachtnai

A bust will cause a price drop but it really won’t make housing any more affordable.

Magnatu

the_syco wrote: »

Currently, there is little supply, and high demand. Thus people will continue to pay silly sums of money to live in shoeboxes. Increases will occur until either supply of vacant units increases, or demand drops due to a bust.

Which is exactly what would happen if the govt replaced HAP with social housing.
Which is why they is such resistance to doing so despite mounting protests and a deeply unpopular housing strategy.

HAP is primarily a mechanism for ensuring that private market rents remain high for private renters and landlord profits are maximised

beauf

Magnatu wrote: »

Which is exactly what would happen if the govt replaced HAP with social housing.
Which is why they is such resistance to doing so despite mounting protests and a deeply unpopular housing strategy.

HAP is primarily a mechanism for ensuring that private market rents remain high for private renters and landlord profits are maximised

Why did they have to make it illegal to discriminate against HAP then?

the_syco

Magnatu wrote: »

Which is exactly what would happen if the govt replaced HAP with social housing.

The government seems content outsourcing this to the private landlords.

Magnatu wrote: »

Which is why they is such resistance to doing so despite mounting protests and a deeply unpopular housing strategy.

The people want it done now, even though there is no funds to do so now. Also, people seem to want the houses in places where houses cost 900k, and don't care that this sort of thing is causing people who are trying to buy the houses to lose out. Finally, people don't want to move into existing vacant houses due to random reasons.

Magnatu wrote: »

HAP is primarily a mechanism for ensuring that private market rents remain high for private renters and landlord profits are maximised

HAP was an attempt to make it illegal for LL's to refuse people on RAS. To get around this, LL's increased their rent to above HAP levels to ensure that HAP tenants can't apply, thus they don't have to refuse HAP tenants.

Graham

the_syco wrote: »

To get around this, LL's increased their rent to above HAP levels to ensure that HAP tenants can't apply, thus they don't have to refuse HAP tenants.

Demand outstripping supply is what's keeping rents above HAP levels.

murphaph

beauf wrote: »

Why did they have to make it illegal to discriminate against HAP then?

And why bother introducing RPZs when the goal of government according to that poster is to maximise rents paid to private landlords. Pretty illogical.

Eric Cartman

beauf wrote: »

Why did they have to make it illegal to discriminate against HAP then?

Because daft would have to add ‘NO HAP’ as the default text for a rental ad :pac:

Magnatu

The government got an 'F' from 100 organisations over how it's handling child and family homelessness

The government has also been criticised for not introducing national standards for emergency accommodation.

Wednesday 27 February 2019

THE GOVERNMENT HAS been strongly criticised for a delay in bringing forward a national quality framework for homeless services, which still hasn’t been fully implemented close to four years after it was first developed.

The Irish government yesterday received an ‘F’ grade from the Children’s Rights Alliance Report Card 2019 in relation to child and family homelessness, a drop from an ‘E’ grade last year.

The CRA – made up of over 100 different organisations – said that the grade reflects the deteriorating housing crisis, with close to 10,000 people now living in state-funded emergency homeless accommodation.

“Nearly 4,000 children are experiencing homelessness which is having a detrimental impact on their health, wellbeing, education and relationships,” the CRA said. 

It said that the government needed to recognise child homelessness was a “national emergency”. 

The homeless problem is at its most acute in Dublin, with latest figures showing just over 1,250 families with close to 2,700 children living in homeless emergency accommodation.

Of that number, 711 families with just under 1,600 children are living in private hotels and B&Bs, while close to 750 children are living in group style homeless accommodation known as family hubs.

The vast majority of families in hotels are “self-accommodating” – meaning they have to source the accommodation themselves, with the council then paying for it. 


Quality standards in emergency accommodation have been raised as a serious issue multiple times over the past number of years. 

Figures compiled by Focus Ireland show that in December over 280 families had been living in emergency accommodation for over 18 months. For many, this could mean living in single hotel rooms or other unsuitable accommodation.

In 2017, the Dublin Regional Homeless Executive (DRHE) – which manages homeless services across the four Dublin local authorities – received over 300 complaints in relation to homeless emergency accommodation.   

Common issues reported with emergency accommodation include bug bed and mice infestations, drug use in accommodation, dampness and mould, anti-social behaviour and violence among residents. 


The government has come in for frequent criticism from non-governmental organisations and opposition politicians in relation to the highly unsuitable nature of emergency accommodation for housing children and families. 


“The fact of the matter is the DRHE standards are atrocious,” he said.
For the hundreds of families living in hotels or B&Bs that they sourced themselves, however, there are no quality standards or inspections in place and no plans by government to introduce tt

Commenting on the report card, Labour housing spokesperson Jan O’Sullivan said that Minister Murphy “clearly does not understand the complexity of family and childhood homelessness”.

“Rebuilding Ireland (the government’s Housing Action Plan) has failed families and children living in homelessness. The Minister must wake up to the reality of this crisis, and put families and children first,” she said.

The government has come in for frequent criticism from non-governmental organisations and opposition politicians in relation to the highly unsuitable nature of emergency accommodation for housing children and families. 

Magnatu

We are seeing the consequences of thr FGs policy of years of refusal to provide social housing. In addition to the vast sums now being transferred to landlords, hotel owners are also making big profits from this deliberately created "housing crisis"

Wheeliebin30

Magnatu wrote: »

We are seeing the consequences of thr FGs policy of years of refusal to provide social housing. In addition to the vast sums now being transferred to landlords, hotel owners are also making big profits from this deliberately created "housing crisis"

FF stopped building social housing in the 90s.

FG built 4,500. Social houses last year, the most built in a decade.

There was no refusal to build social houses, the demand and money simply wasn’t there a few years ago.

beauf

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

...
There was no refusal to build social houses, the demand and money simply wasn’t there a few years ago.

???? Are you for real...

There was.. They pushed it into the private rental market...

Franz Von Peppercorn

the_syco wrote: »

Professional landlords will drive up the max rent every year. That's something you don't seem to get. Current accidental landlords will try to keep a good tenant. Professional landlords won't care.

There’s no evidence at all that accidental landlords and small time landlords don’t try to get as much money as possible. Most of the rent increases in the last few years were driven by small time landlords.

beauf

It's the private rental market. It tries to get the market rate. The market rate is influenced by demand and availability. Competition in effect.

Franz Von Peppercorn

beauf wrote: »

It's the private rental market. It tries to get the market rate. The market rate is influenced by demand and availability. Competition in effect.

The market rate applies to both large and small investors.

Magnatu

beauf wrote: »

It's the private rental market. It tries to get the market rate. The market rate is influenced by demand and availability. Competition in effect.

The "market rate" is being set by the €700 million being pumped into the private rental market by the taxpayer every year.

garhjw

Magnatu wrote: »

The "market rate" is being set by the €700 million being pumped into the private rental market by the taxpayer every year.

The market rate is set by the market. That’s why it is called a market. It’s a simple concept but 1 you don’t seem able to comprehend.

The_Conductor

The market rate is set by supply and demand.
At present- demand vastly outstrips supply.
Government policy is to drive small landlords (who make up 80% of the supply) from the sector.
This is only going to further increase demand.
This in turn- will continue to drive prices- until such time as additional constraints are hit (such as people's ability to pay).
Meanwhile- the government don't care- because they can get a large slice of any subventions back in direct taxation.

The key to unlocking all of this- is SUPPLY. Nothing else- but supply.

Magnatu

garhjw wrote: »

The market rate is set by the market. That’s why it is called a market. It’s a simple concept but 1 you don’t seem able to comprehend.

If the market rate for an area is€700 a month and the govt comes along and tells landlords they will give them €1300 a month then supply is taken out of the market and the new market rate becomes €1300 a month. Pour in hundreds of millions and you change the market.