Private landlords leaving the market is the number one reason for homelessness

Grumpypants

So it may come as a shock to absolutley no one but a new report out today from a homeless charity explains that the number one reason for familes becoming homless, is landlords selling up and leaving the buiness.

https://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-families-8-4680518-Jun2019/

These families are not trouble makers, didn't have arrears, and most had been there for over a year, some for up to 6 years. So these are good long term tenents.

I wonder what could be the common driving factor for landlords with good tenents flooding out of the market?? :pac:

Pity you can't propose fair incentive to landlords without the usual crowd screaming about funding private landlords.

jay0109

Grumpypants wrote: »

These families are not trouble makers, didn't have arrears, and most had been there for over a year, some for up to 6 years. So these are good long term tenents.

I don't think you can definitively say that!

I also see in that report that 56% of those studied were migrants, the majority of whom were nonEU.
We really are importing a problem that's going to cost billions to solve

DelBoy Trotter

While private landlords leaving the rental market is a problem, it helps in the house buying sector as it means more houses for those looking to buy a house (and leave the rental market themselves)

beauf

I would guess most FTB go for new builds no?

beauf

Grumpypants wrote: »

So it may come as a shock to absolutley no one but a new report out today from a homeless charity explains that the number one reason for familes becoming homless, is landlords selling up ....

I would assume that the private rental market is the majority supplier (since the local authorities outsourced it) of social housing. So its going to be the no1 on any issue.

Browney7

Grumpypants wrote: »

So it may come as a shock to absolutley no one but a new report out today from a homeless charity explains that the number one reason for familes becoming homless, is landlords selling up and leaving the buiness.

https://www.thejournal.ie/homeless-families-8-4680518-Jun2019/

These families are not trouble makers, didn't have arrears, and most had been there for over a year, some for up to 6 years. So these are good long term tenents.

I wonder what could be the common driving factor for landlords with good tenents flooding out of the market?? :pac:

Pity you can't propose fair incentive to landlords without the usual crowd screaming about funding private landlords.

The number one factor is landlords probably see the juicy capital values of their asset increasing by over 50% since 2013 and feel that growth is going to flatline in the coming years and wish to deploy their capital elsewhere. Fair play to them

SozBbz

Browney7 wrote: »

The number one factor is landlords probably see the juicy capital values of their asset increasing by over 50% since 2013 and feel that growth is going to flatline in the coming years and wish to deploy their capital elsewhere. Fair play to them

I'm not sure about this. Not that many got deals around 2013. Transactions were very low in those years.

Also I think its part of the Irish psyche to like owning property and many small LLs fall into this category.

Theyre leaving because the taxes are punitive, and all recent changes have been in favour of the tenant while the LL's are left holding all the risk.

IMO if there were certain changes made to the tax situation, as well as strengthening the hand of LL's who have truly errant tenants. Where a tenant is not paying or causing significant damage, a quicker mechanism to resolve such scenarios in 2-3 months rather than the current situation which can easily take a year. I don't think most LL's have any issue with good tenants feeling secure in their homes, but its these nightmare scenarios which really are making LL's think its not worth it.

stargazer 68

We bought our house last year and the previous owners had it rented for many years to various tenants. They had a few properties but as the leases were coming to an end they were selling them off - just fed up with the whole rental market and legislations etc.

Browney7

SozBbz wrote: »

I'm not sure about this. Not that many got deals around 2013.

Also I think its part of the Irish psyche to like owning property and many small LLs fall into this category.

Theyre leaving because the taxes are punitive, and all recent changes have been in favour of the tenant while the LL's are left holding all the risk.

IMO if there were certain changes made to the tax situation, as well as strengthening the hand of LL's who have truly errant tenants. Where a tenant is not paying or causing significant damage, a quicker mechanism to resolve such scenarios in 2-3 months rather than the current situation which can easily take a year. I don't think most LL's have any issue with good tenants feeling secure in their homes, but its these nightmare scenarios which really are making LL's think its not worth it.

I never said they bought them in 2013 just highlighting incredibly strong growth in residential prices in recent years which benefitted many LLs. If LLs are harbouring notions of selling they will likely sell now. Just look at the property price statistics from the CSO - they're flatlining.

My old LL had been getting 16k a year in rent on the property but is looking to sell now for 350k. Hard to blame him. 8k a year after tax and fees and maintenance with potential for future drops in capital values versus having a nice chunk of cash at his disposal to do what he likes.

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

The number one factor is landlords probably see the juicy capital values of their asset increasing by over 50% since 2013 and feel that growth is going to flatline in the coming years and wish to deploy their capital elsewhere. Fair play to them

For those who bought during the second half of the noughties.......Increasing by 50%, having decreased by 60% in the previous 5 years, puts it at about 40% less than what they paid for it.

(Bought for 300k, fell to 120k, rose back to 180k)

Gumbo

Browney7 wrote: »

The number one factor is landlords probably see the juicy capital values of their asset increasing by over 50% since 2013 and feel that growth is going to flatline in the coming years and wish to deploy their capital elsewhere. Fair play to them

No, I think this post is flawed in that you've picked a short period of growth. Some properties hat were bought before that haven't reached their original value and never will.

One example is a north Dublin property I know, bought for 425k in 2006, would sell today for 300k. Currently rented out so no capital gain at all there.

If you cherry pick the time between 2010 and now, you can argue that the value has doubled as you could have picked one up for 150k back in 2010/2011.

Browney7

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For those who bought during the second half of the noughties.......Increasing by 50%, having decreased by 60% in the previous 5 years, puts it at about 40% less than what they paid for it.

(Bought for 300k, fell to 120k, rose back to 180k)

I never said anything to the contrary. The actual growth between 2013 and now is closer to 80% and not 50% (I was undercooking it).

Any landlord who won't countenance selling until it's worth at least what they paid for it during the credit bubble will be waiting a number of years.

I don't see the great shame in admitting that many LLs see it that their investment has effectively matured and future capital growth potential is limited and they are cashing in the chips. I know the Accomodation and Property forum is a "woe is me" place at the best of times and the government and RTB exist to punish LLs but the significant increase in the wealth of people with significant assets in recent years is just met with a shrug of the shoulders.

I say fair play to LLs for selling. They held or purchased property during a period of significant economic uncertainty and now wish to consolidate whilst contemplating the potential impact of Brexit, new supply coming on stream etc. It's a good time for accidental Landlords to sell so they can move on with their lives having made decisions to purchase a property for far too much money in the late 00's.

Latest stats for April have been published, Dublin has dropped marginally again.

Browney7

kceire wrote: »

No, I think this post is flawed in that you've picked a short period of growth. Some properties hat were bought before that haven't reached their original value and never will.

One example is a north Dublin property I know, bought for 425k in 2006, would sell today for 300k. Currently rented out so no capital gain at all there.

If you cherry pick the time between 2010 and now, you can argue that the value has doubled as you could have picked one up for 150k back in 2010/2011.

You're anchoring your values during a credit bubble. Any rational investor shouldn't consider what they paid for an asset when considering whether to hold it or not and merely consider the value they attach to it now and the potential for future growth. The fact that people bought with significant leverage complicates things no end and probably can't sell and are crossing their fingers for another few years until the property exceeds the loan whilst they service the mortgage with rental income.

Fol20

Browney7 wrote: »

You're anchoring your values during a credit bubble. Any rational investor shouldn't consider what they paid for an asset when considering whether to hold it or not and merely consider the value they attach to it now and the potential for future growth. The fact that people bought with significant leverage complicates things no end and probably can't sell and are crossing their fingers for another few years until the property exceeds the loan whilst they service the mortgage with rental income.

Well put. I sold one of mine 2 years ago where it was sold with a loss of over 100k. I did it so i could use the funds for greater gains in another investment instead holding on in wait. Some may not be as fortunate to do something like this but if you want to be an investor, your train of thought is best.

Fol20

All this article does is further the agenda of housing agencies to stop ll from ending tenancies as they are selling. If this ever does happen, i highly doubt you will ever see any small time ll enter the market again as your completely destroying the value of their asset..

The government really need to allow more incentives to stay in the market. I wonder if we will get anything this coming budget.

.......

Lack of social housing is the number one reason there are so many homeless.

Until the government address this we will see more and more homelessness.

seamie78

the report states they became homeless because landlord decided to sell or move back in(valid reasons to evict there's not a lot), am pretty sure that the landlord didn't sell or move into the property in all cases, most likely a few relet at an increased rent

Gumbo

seamie78 wrote: »

the report states they became homeless because landlord decided to sell or move back in(valid reasons to evict there's not a lot), am pretty sure that the landlord didn't sell or move into the property in all cases, most likely a few relet at an increased rent

Hearsay unless you can prove it.

.......

seamie78 wrote: »

the report states they became homeless because landlord decided to sell or move back in(valid reasons to evict there's not a lot), am pretty sure that the landlord didn't sell or move into the property in all cases, most likely a few relet at an increased rent

Cant do that in an RPZ.

Sweet.Science

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

While private landlords leaving the rental market is a problem, it helps in the house buying sector as it means more houses for those looking to buy a house (and leave the rental market themselves)

A lot of private homes are bring bought by the council homeless charities . Its a nightmare out there

SozBbz

Browney7 wrote: »

I never said they bought them in 2013 just highlighting incredibly strong growth in residential prices in recent years which benefitted many LLs. If LLs are harbouring notions of selling they will likely sell now. Just look at the property price statistics from the CSO - they're flatlining.

Oh I know, I've been out househunting myself lately and the market is definitely not as bouyant as it was 4/5 years ago when I was last looking, I've no reason to doubt the stats.

What I'm saying though, is that investors from 2010-2013 (who got good deals basically) are few and far between, and while some of them are probably cashing out, I don't think that cohort alone is big enough to account for all the private LL's who are selling up.

I'm basis this assumption on the fact that transactions were very low in those years. I myself had 3 sale agreed's fall through from 2013-2014. In hindsight, at least 2 of those cases were people who didnt really want to sell but were playing for time with their lenders by appearing to put their properties on the market. While asking prices looked really attractive, getting a sale over the line was another story.

Grumpypants

beauf wrote: »

I would assume that the private rental market is the majority supplier (since the local authorities outsourced it) of social housing. So its going to be the no1 on any issue.

I would have expected the number one reason to be the nasty landlords putting up the rent to levels they can't afford. But it's not, landlords are just fed up. And there is no queue of new landlords coming in.

It has to be true that some are now taking the gains from the last few years but those gains are on the back of huge losses. Most landlords if they can get close to clearing the debt they are jumping. If that's all it takes to leave your investment behind then that speaks volumes.

SnipSnop

Grumpypants wrote: »

I would have expected the number one reason to be the nasty landlords putting up the rent to levels they can't afford. But it's not, landlords are just fed up. And there is no queue of new landlords coming in.

It has to be true that some are now taking the gains from the last few years but those gains are on the back of huge losses. Most landlords if they can get close to clearing the debt they are jumping. If that's all it takes to leave your investment behind then that speaks volumes.

I am in the fed up boat.
Rent not covering the mortgage, cant raise it to a level where it even breaks even due to rent control.
Too much work and costs involved and just sick of the hassle and worry of it all.

Just about to be worth what is owed on it so plan to give notice to our tenant in the next month or so.
I hate doing it since she likely wont be able to find anywhere else but its honestly close to breaking me at this stage and I have had enough.

Take the loss, forget it ever happened and move on. Life is too short.

Bikerman2019

There are a bunch of investors buying up hundreds of properties, sending in a crew of builders/handymen/painters stripping them back to factory setting, putting in new appliances and furniture, then letting the properties to the council on 20 year leases.


They are doing serious work and they get the property back in time to come. The council is only kicking the can down the road.



I personally cleared out one house and while painting it, I listened on the radio about an inquest for a local girl who killed herself in emergency accomodation in kildare. The house I cleared out was let to the council and they moved in people from another house who didnt like it. Driving a 131 car paying about 50 euro a week contribution. Never worked a day in Ireland since they arrived.


I was peed off. There are some serious feck ups with the SDCC system of allocation.

Grumpypants

I see Ireland's biggest land lord is buying up 800 or so houses. That brings their holding to over 3500 units. 3500 houses Irish families can't buy.

These Reits don't pay 58% tax in their income. They pay practically nothing.

Our government screws landlords living here, and incentives those taking millions out of the country for big investment funds.

Glenbhoy

Unless the landlords are simply taking the property off the market and leaving it vacant (or demolishing it), how this can be affecting the supply?

beauf

The supply of property to buy and to rent are not the same thing.

The supply of both may even be increasing but if it can't meet demand, due to population growth, and immigration.

Then we have a shortage.

NewRed2

Being a landlord these days is not worth it. That's fairly clear. So if you lose landlords from the market..... what happens?
More pressure on the government and social housing.
And THATS where it kicks in.
Cut the crap and give landlords a reason to enter the market instead of exiting it.
But landlords have been screwed under FG so thats why they're leaving the market.

SnipSnop

Interesting talk on newstalk on "the hard shoulder" yesterday on exactly this subject.
https://www.newstalk.com/listen-back

13th June around 28 min into the show.

Macha

The fact that the state has been reliant and continues to rely on the private market to deliver housing combined with terrible planning that has allowed low-density housing are the two main causes of the homelessness crisis.

From there stem all the other problems.

California Dreamer

Took equity out of my house in 2005 to buy rental property. Why not, investment in the future etc etc.

Paid €460k in 2005

Worth €180k in 2010

Sold for €300k in 2019

Delighted to have that noose off my neck. It was never going to go back to 2005 levels. Plus the ever changing rules for land lords made my mind up for me. I’ll come away with a few quid but that’s going straight into my own mortgage.

Cal4567

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

There are a bunch of investors buying up hundreds of properties, sending in a crew of builders/handymen/painters stripping them back to factory setting, putting in new appliances and furniture, then letting the properties to the council on 20 year leases.


They are doing serious work and they get the property back in time to come. The council is only kicking the can down the road.



I personally cleared out one house and while painting it, I listened on the radio about an inquest for a local girl who killed herself in emergency accomodation in kildare. The house I cleared out was let to the council and they moved in people from another house who didnt like it. Driving a 131 car paying about 50 euro a week contribution. Never worked a day in Ireland since they arrived.


I was peed off. There are some serious feck ups with the SDCC system of allocation.

Heard about this. Talk about property still being a commodity. Yet another short term government policy and FF as much as fault as FG. The only person who really benefits out of this is the freehold owner.

The mass sheeplike drive to own a second or even a third property in the mad years was comfortably used by government as social housing rather than building new stock. Also a significant amount of these new landlords really had no idea of regulations and didn't see it much more than just beyond being a cash cow, never mind the fact that they would have to be managing real everyday people.

This vast number of small landlords perked up government which has led to higher tax controls and we are now where we are now.

The tax friendly approach to large scale institutional landlords in recent years has made it even worse for the small time landlord. Don't forget also, they never really wanted to be landlords, that wasn't their driver. It was just something to 'top up my pension'.

Glenbhoy

beauf wrote: »

The supply of property to buy and to rent are not the same thing.

The supply of both may even be increasing but if it can't meet demand, due to population growth, and immigration.

Then we have a shortage.

We have a shortage of suitable accommodation, but the change in status of these properties from rental to owner occupied is irrelevant as the new occupants have likely exited the rental market and even if not directly, they have freed up a space on the rental market, unless they are new to Ireland, in which case, in the absence of purchasing this property they would have added to demand in the rental market.

Stop moaning ffs

beauf wrote: »

I would guess most FTB go for new builds no?

Who are ‘private’ landlords selling to?
Always wondered.

beauf

Glenbhoy wrote: »

We have a shortage of suitable accommodation, but the change in status of these properties from rental to owner occupied is irrelevant as the new occupants have likely exited the rental market and even if not directly, they have freed up a space on the rental market, unless they are new to Ireland, in which case, in the absence of purchasing this property they would have added to demand in the rental market.

They might have come from their parents house.. maybe it's left empty. I know a good few empty houses. One I used to live in had been empty for 25yrs in decent area in Dublin.

This idea that you don't lose rental stock isnt true. Because we are losing rental stock.

We lost 50,000 landlords in the last crash gained back about half that. Demand is higher than the available stock and was last I saw still shrinking. The REITs might change this though.

beauf

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Who are ‘private’ landlords selling to?
Always wondered.

I'm sure it's pretty varied, and includes some which remain empty.

Wheeliebin30

....... wrote: »

Lack of social housing is the number one reason there are so many homeless.

Until the government address this we will see more and more homelessness.

The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.

Gone are the days unfortunately.

STB.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.

Gone are the days unfortunately.

Well the Government and County Councils need to find the money.

Its was never clever nor sustainable to put social housing obligations on private landlords.

The inertia policy of the FG led governments for the past 8 years is what has us with a housing crisis.

Where have all the new taxes during their time introduced gone ?

is_that_so

Cal4567 wrote: »

Heard about this. Talk about property still being a commodity. Yet another short term government policy and FF as much as fault as FG. The only person who really benefits out of this is the freehold owner.

The mass sheeplike drive to own a second or even a third property in the mad years was comfortably used by government as social housing rather than building new stock. Also a significant amount of these new landlords really had no idea of regulations and didn't see it much more than just beyond being a cash cow, never mind the fact that they would have to be managing real everyday people.

This vast number of small landlords perked up government which has led to higher tax controls and we are now where we are now.

The tax friendly approach to large scale institutional landlords in recent years has made it even worse for the small time landlord. Don't forget also, they never really wanted to be landlords, that wasn't their driver. It was just something to 'top up my pension'.

Social housing hasn't been built in large numbers for a very long time. From the 1970s on, councils divested themselves of stock in favour of the current model of using the private sector as back up. The situation as it stands is still in a state of dysfunction. Not all of these are to blame. We still have far too many small landlords and there is a place for large scale landlords. We also still have a stock deficit in apartments for rent, social housing and affordable housing.

Wanderer78

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

The money just isn’t there to build masses of social houses.

If allowed, we could simple create it, as creating money is easy, there just isn't political will at the moment, so this problem is going to continue indefinitely

STB.

is_that_so wrote: »

Social housing hasn't been built in large numbers for a very long time. From the 1970s on, councils divested themselves of stock in favour of the current model of using the private sector as back up. The situation as it stands is still in a state of dysfunction. Not all of these are to blame. We still have far too many small landlords and there is a place for large scale landlords. We also still have a stock deficit in apartments for rent, social housing and affordable housing.

70s ? Stop.


Do not forget that this current flock of political geniuses introduced NAMA, sold land and property stock at knock down prices to vulture funds, yet kept no stock for social housing. A massively missed opportunity, compounded by the very agencies and Councils now competing for the same housing stock at retail prices from the vulture funds and developers.

beauf

is_that_so wrote: »

Social housing hasn't been built in large numbers for a very long time. From the 1970s on, councils divested themselves of stock in favour of the current model of using the private sector as back up. The situation as it stands is still in a state of dysfunction. Not all of these are to blame. We still have far too many small landlords and there is a place for large scale landlords. We also still have a stock deficit in apartments for rent, social housing and affordable housing.

The reason you have so many is exactly this stopping off building social and affordable housing. It happened all over Europe. The rise of cheap credit and also housing policy that encouraged using housing for investment vehicles. That is ok in small amounts but not uncontrolled and unlimited. Not along side restricting supply by not building local authority housing.

Small landlords are a symptom not a cause. Which is why constantly attacking them is making the situation worse. The move to large reits will change this, but for the better? I'm dubious. Did it work anywhere else like London. No. Is this ignoring of what's happened in other markets what we are going with REITs also. Yes. I don't have a problem with REITs they are definitely part of a solution. But uncontrolled? Again?

_Brian

The mentality of the market is anti landlords, too much tax, no respect for property, no proper system to remove trouble tenants, over staying is becoming socially acceptable and even encouraged by tenant support groups.

I think myself it won’t be long until a law is passed barring tenants from being evicted. The government will be desperate to keep people houses they will saddle private landlords with them permanently.

Got nightmare tenants out at Christmas and got our house renovated to sell. The only reason we didn’t sell was my brother wanted to rent it. We will sell before letting anyone else in.
Something like 70% of the rented accommodation locally to us has been sold off and it’s near impossible for small families to get a decent house to rent.

Rental market cannot function without landlords making a proper profit. Changes have been made to reign in “greedy landlords” with taxes etc. All that has resulted is a collapse in numbers of units available. Being a landlord in the current market is difficult so the returns would need to be attractive, yet every change I see makes it less and less attractive so the decline in units will continue and so those with nowhere to rent will increase.

Society can’t have it both ways, if we want lots of rental accommodation available we need to make it an attractive business to be in, not a nightmare.

Wanderer78

_Brian wrote:

Society can’t have it both ways, if we want lots of rental accommodation available we need to make it an attractive business to be in, not a nightmare.

Our current approach is exposing both parties, I can't see any changes coming, if I was a landlord, I'd be seriously considering getting out also, its an incredible mess

is_that_so

STB. wrote: »

70s ? Stop.


Do not forget that this current flock of political geniuses introduced NAMA, sold land and property stock at knock down prices to vulture funds, yet kept no stock for social housing. A massively missed opportunity, compounded by the very agencies and Councils now competing for the same housing stock at retail prices from the vulture funds and developers.

That's when it started. They copied what was going in Britain. NAMA has done what it was supposed to do: clean up the banking system and offload property linked to that. In this withering analysis you seem to have forgotten that there was no building whatsoever from 2011-2014. In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.

10pennymixup

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

While private landlords leaving the rental market is a problem, it helps in the house buying sector as it means more houses for those looking to buy a house (and leave the rental market themselves)

That is a very logical assumption to make. LL sells, their tenant is made homeless but another ex tenant, now buyer, moves in to that house. Things balance or so you would think.

But as the numbers of landlords leaving goes up, so to does the number of homeless. So there is something else happening and LLs selling is not addressing the supply issue in any meaningful way.

It's a red herring.

Fol20

beauf wrote: »

Small landlords are a symptom not a cause. Which is why constantly attacking them is having no effect?

Are you sure about that?
Total rental stock has declined.
For every two llthat leave the market, one is entering.

This sounds like it is having an effect on the market as rental prices have never been so high. There are other factors also but this does not help.

is_that_so

beauf wrote: »

The reason you have so many is exactly this stopping off building social and affordable housing. It happened all over Europe. The rise of cheap credit and also housing policy that encouraged using housing for investment vehicles. That is ok in small amounts but not uncontrolled and unlimited. Not along side restricting supply by not building local authority housing.

Small landlords are a symptom not a cause. Which is why constantly attacking them is having no effect. The move to large reits will change this, but for the better? I'm dubious. Did it work anywhere else like London. No. Is this ignoring of what's happened in other markets what we are going with REITs also. Yes. I don't have a problem with REITs they are definitely part of a solution. But uncontrolled? Again?

I'm not sure about REITs myself. For now they do look like they are milking it but their structure makes them beholden to shareholder return. In a market with better supply they can be part fo the solution. AFAIK the model is common enough in Austria and some other northern European countries. Whether we have the right version of them for Ireland still remains to be seen.

Cyclepath

Grumpypants wrote: »

I see Ireland's biggest land lord is buying up 800 or so houses. That brings their holding to over 3500 units. 3500 houses Irish families can't buy.

These Reits don't pay 58% tax in their income. They pay practically nothing.

Our government screws landlords living here, and incentives those taking millions out of the country for big investment funds.

^^ underrated point here. I got out of the game a long time ago. I was a reluctant landlord to start with as I had to rent the house while working in another country.

You pay your mortgage hopefully with the rental income but usually have to top it up with some of your own PAYE earnings, and then you pay tax on the so called 'profit' you made on the rental! To compensate, you supposedly have a capital value increase in the property - but that didn't work out well between 2007 and 2013.

Many landlords are now getting out of the market because their properties have finally come back to a value where they can sell and break even on the balance of the mortgage owed.

Meanwhile the REITS are benefitting from tax breaks, so say hello to your new corporate landlords!

Wildly Boaring

is_that_so wrote: »

In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.

Dealing with council engineers daily I'd say they'd freely admit that no council has the competence to build houses.

They'd end up paying consulting engineer and architect firms to oversee. Tenders out and private builders to build.

But big savings could be made on the land.

beauf

is_that_so wrote: »

That's when it started. They copied what was going in Britain. NAMA has done what it was supposed to do: clean up the banking system and offload property linked to that. In this withering analysis you seem to have forgotten that there was no building whatsoever from 2011-2014. In addition, many councils neither have the skills nor the competence to build anything much.

It was poor value for the country in the middle of a housing apocalypse.