Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

1457910113

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ Hubertj


    cisk wrote: »
    Belgrave property who own something like 50 STL studio and 1 bed properties in D2, D4, D6 have plastered 1 MONTH FREE RENT all over their ads. Looks like a sign of desperation to get people in for “free” in April and then monthly until the tourists start coming back.

    https://www.daft.ie/22020888

    Is that not a lot for a studio? €1626?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hubertj wrote: »
    Is that not a lot for a studio? €1626?

    That one seems to be a 1-bed although the description paragraph says studio. But yeah even though they seem to be a high standard they are very optimistic. Some other studios they have are about the size of a cell in mount joy.

    “ Several of the properties are between 13 sq m and 15 sq m in size. This is only slightly larger than a cell in Mountjoy Prison, which is typically 8 sq m, while several cells in the women’s section are 11.7 sq m.”
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/renovated-dublin-bedsits-flood-onto-market-after-coronavirus-restrictions-trvjxwf9t


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    Hubertj wrote: »
    Is that not a lot for a studio? €1626?


    Indeed and there are other developments that are now advertising 2 months free rent but at a level I would consider high. I suppose you could always bargain them down from this level as there are now signs of desperation coming so someone will go down further.


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    I can't imagine IRES REIT (Ireland's biggest private landlord) reducing rents anytime soon.

    What is going to happen when someone in there who is paying some of the REIT level rents notices they can do much better elsewhere....the REIT is going to be down a tenant with little or no chance replacing them at the previous level. I can understand at the volume they operate at that they will try to hold the line as long as possible but that will only work for so long.

    Clancy Quays (place near Heuston Station) looks like it has a couple of new blocks just about to hit the market, down in the IFSC there are loads in the pipeline as well. Is there the market for this amount given Capital Dock is over 50% empty a year after opening?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ Hubertj


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Indeed and there are other developments that are now advertising 2 months free rent but at a level I would consider high. I suppose you could always bargain them down from this level as there are now signs of desperation coming so someone will go down further.

    2 months free is effectively 16%ish which is not a bad discount. Are you referring to the development near the point? I used to pass by on my way to work every morning. They look nice and have nice facilities but pricey


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    Hubertj wrote: »
    2 months free is effectively 16%ish which is not a bad discount. Are you referring to the development near the point? I used to pass by on my way to work every morning. They look nice and have nice facilities but pricey

    I think the development near the Point is only 1 month free but at those prices they should probably be 2. The one I was referring to was either D1/7. The last time I checked daft they were still being listed after being discounted for a couple of weeks.

    There was an article in IT either last week or previous one where EA's were saying it was 'temporarily' a renters market. I think there was a reference to places listed at 2300 but having to take 2100. I would view all prices now as aspirational and would go in hard if I was looking for somewhere to rent.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,971 ✭✭✭ Assetbacked


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    What is going to happen when someone in there who is paying some of the REIT level rents notices they can do much better elsewhere....the REIT is going to be down a tenant with little or no chance replacing them at the previous level. I can understand at the volume they operate at that they will try to hold the line as long as possible but that will only work for so long.

    Clancy Quays (place near Heuston Station) looks like it has a couple of new blocks just about to hit the market, down in the IFSC there are loads in the pipeline as well. Is there the market for this amount given Capital Dock is over 50% empty a year after opening?

    The prospect of a vacant property tax hitting these developments would encourage them to lower their rents.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭ Edgware


    The prospect of a vacant property tax hitting these developments would encourage them to lower their rents.

    Well the " its not constitutional" argument against interference with private property went out the window fairly quickly once Covid hit here. FF and FG know they have only one chance to solve the rental and housing crisis. The old "Never waste a good recession" line is there to be played in a new Government. A FF Soc Dem and Labour grouping would be strong enough to hold FG in a four party administration.
    Vacant property tax, rent freezes etc could come very easy. I don't think any landlord can complain if rents are frozen at 2020 level or even reduced to 2019 level


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    Edgware wrote: »
    Vacant property tax, rent freezes etc could come very easy. I don't think any landlord can complain if rents are frozen at 2020 level or even reduced to 2019 level

    Leo said in interview over weekend that a rent freeze won't be needed as rents are going to drop anyway ;)

    A vacant tax would truly set the cat amongst the pigeons. Hopefully this won't be needed as the hoarders of these units will see that as rent drops they might as well get something in for them. The REIT's used to boast of almost full occupancy, to maintain that then they will have to reduce their rents (though I imagine they will do it through incentives like one months free rent rather than an explicit drop).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭ Blut2


    A vacant property tax in the RPZs is a pretty easy win for the government, I can see that coming in even under an exclusively FF/FG government. They're going to be desperate to find new revenue streams for the corona-recession, but will be loathe to up PAYE/USC again. So it'll be the at-the-fringe taxes like that which they'll turn to.

    If its limited to within the RPZs it also won't hit the holiday homes that a lot of older FF/FG voters have down the country.

    Plus revenue raising aside the positive effects it'll have on the housing crisis, taking the wind out of SF's sails, etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭ Hubertj


    Blut2 wrote: »
    A vacant property tax in the RPZs is a pretty easy win for the government, I can see that coming in even under an exclusively FF/FG government. They're going to be desperate to find new revenue streams for the corona-recession, but will be loathe to up PAYE/USC again. So it'll be the at-the-fringe taxes like that which they'll turn to.

    If its limited to within the RPZs it also won't hit the holiday homes that a lot of older FF/FG voters have down the country.

    Plus revenue raising aside the positive effects it'll have on the housing crisis, taking the wind out of SF's sails, etc.

    How would you implement the tax? If a unit is inlet for x period then x charge applies? How would it be assessed and collected etc?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭ Edgware


    Of course FGs lawyer pals will make a tidy income out of it testing its constitutionality.
    Win win


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭ Blut2


    Hubertj wrote: »
    How would you implement the tax? If a unit is inlet for x period then x charge applies? How would it be assessed and collected etc?

    Something along the lines of "If a property within an RPZ has no registered occupant for over 3 months a vacant property tax of .01% of value per month from the fourth month on-wards will be applied" would seem reasonably fair to me. Though obviously that figure could increase to a more populist/punitive/profitable for the state level, depending on the public mood.

    Its pretty easy for the state to check if a property has a registered full time occupant or not, especially when they have a large financial incentive to do so efficiently. The fact the department of Revenue is by far the most efficient/well-run government department is largely down to that financial incentive.

    Collecting it is the easy part - the easiest is send bills to the registered owner of the property, and if they go unpaid place them (+interest) as a charge against the property when it gets sold. Though they could do it any number of ways, again depending on how populist/punitive the mood is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 359 ✭✭ Experience_day


    Blut2 wrote: »
    Something along the lines of "If a property within an RPZ has no registered occupant for over 3 months a vacant property tax of .01% of value per month from the fourth month on-wards will be applied" would seem reasonably fair to me. Though obviously that figure could increase to a more populist/punitive/profitable for the state level, depending on the public mood.

    Its pretty easy for the state to check if a property has a registered full time occupant or not, especially when they have a large financial incentive to do so efficiently. The fact the department of Revenue is by far the most efficient/well-run government department is largely down to that financial incentive.

    Collecting it is the easy part - the easiest is send bills to the registered owner of the property, and if they go unpaid place them (+interest) as a charge against the property when it gets sold. Though they could do it any number of ways, again depending on how populist/punitive the mood is.

    Seems pretty unfair to me. Making the market and thus country pretty unpalatable feels short sighted...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭ Claw Hammer


    Blut2 wrote: »
    Something along the lines of "If a property within an RPZ has no registered occupant for over 3 months a vacant property tax of .01% of value per month from the fourth month on-wards will be applied" would seem reasonably fair to me. Though obviously that figure could increase to a more populist/punitive/profitable for the state level, depending on the public mood.

    Its pretty easy for the state to check if a property has a registered full time occupant or not, especially when they have a large financial incentive to do so efficiently. The fact the department of Revenue is by far the most efficient/well-run government department is largely down to that financial incentive.

    Collecting it is the easy part - the easiest is send bills to the registered owner of the property, and if they go unpaid place them (+interest) as a charge against the property when it gets sold. Though they could do it any number of ways, again depending on how populist/punitive the mood is.

    There are many properties within RPZs which have occupants but none of them are registered. Why should they be hit with a tax?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ Melanchthon


    There are many properties within RPZs which have occupants but none of them are registered. Why should they be hit with a tax?

    Why wouldn't they be registered if they are operating above board.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭ Claw Hammer


    Why wouldn't they be registered if they are operating above board.

    They may be owner occupied for example, so why would they be registered?


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    They may be owner occupied for example, so why would they be registered?

    Sounds pretty simple to overcome where they could just ask for a declaration as to whether it is a PPR or not on the property tax form?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭ Claw Hammer


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Sounds pretty simple to overcome where they could just ask for a declaration as to whether it is a PPR or not on the property tax form?

    What about the tenants who are liable for the tax? Wold they have to pay a vacant tax on a property which is occupied?


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    What about the tenants who are liable for the tax? Wold they have to pay a vacant tax on a property which is occupied?

    Tenants pay property tax?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,657 ✭✭✭ Claw Hammer


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Tenants pay property tax?

    Yes. Thousands of them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    Yes. Thousands of them.

    Had no idea, would have assumed it was bundled into price.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ Melanchthon


    Ozark707 wrote: »
    Had no idea, would have assumed it was bundled into price.

    It is bundled with the price in any place you see on daft which has an awful lot of properties in the rent pressure zones.


  • Registered Users Posts: 712 ✭✭✭ Ozark707


    It is bundled with the price in any place you see on daft which has an awful lot of properties in the rent pressure zones.

    So from the practical sense is it the LL who pays it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭ Blut2


    Seems pretty unfair to me. Making the market and thus country pretty unpalatable feels short sighted...

    How exactly is it unfair to tax long term vacant properties within RPZs? Its probably one of the more "fair" extra taxes the government can levy that I can think of - certainly in comparison to the alternative revenue raising streams of increasing things like PAYE or USC on workers.

    Even revenue raising aside, there really should be no long term vacant properties at all in RPZs, given the accommodation crisis. Anything that helps incentivize that, and also raise revenue for the government at the same time, is a pretty easy sell to the vast, vast majority of voters.

    I don't think you'll find any political party rushing to defend the rights of landlords to keep properties long term vacant in RPZs, its pretty indefensible in the current climate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 930 ✭✭✭ DubCount


    Blut2 wrote: »
    Even revenue raising aside, there really should be no long term vacant properties at all in RPZs, given the accommodation crisis. Anything that helps incentivize that, and also raise revenue for the government at the same time, is a pretty easy sell to the vast, vast majority of voters.

    What about people going into nursing homes, will their vacant property be taxed.

    What about student accommodation that cant be filled in summer months, will they be taxed.

    What about when people die and their property is stuck in probate, should that be taxed.

    Nothing in tax is simple.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,961 ✭✭✭✭ Shefwedfan


    Blut2 wrote: »
    How exactly is it unfair to tax long term vacant properties within RPZs? Its probably one of the more "fair" extra taxes the government can levy that I can think of - certainly in comparison to the alternative revenue raising streams of increasing things like PAYE or USC on workers.

    Even revenue raising aside, there really should be no long term vacant properties at all in RPZs, given the accommodation crisis. Anything that helps incentivize that, and also raise revenue for the government at the same time, is a pretty easy sell to the vast, vast majority of voters.

    I don't think you'll find any political party rushing to defend the rights of landlords to keep properties long term vacant in RPZs, its pretty indefensible in the current climate.


    Have you seen some of the tenants going around? why would a landlord have to rent a property for some person to turn it into s**t, the landlord is then left with the cost to get rid of them and also to clean up the mess....

    If every tenant was a good tenant then yes you could say it is indefensible, but in reality Ireland has a lot of crappy tenants


  • Registered Users Posts: 267 ✭✭ overkill602


    Blut2 wrote: »
    How exactly is it unfair to tax long term vacant properties within RPZs? Its probably one of the more "fair" extra taxes the government can levy that I can think of - certainly in comparison to the alternative revenue raising streams of increasing things like PAYE or USC on workers.

    Even revenue raising aside, there really should be no long term vacant properties at all in RPZs, given the accommodation crisis. Anything that helps incentivize that, and also raise revenue for the government at the same time, is a pretty easy sell to the vast, vast majority of voters.

    I don't think you'll find any political party rushing to defend the rights of landlords to keep properties long term vacant in RPZs, its pretty indefensible in the current climate.


    (1) landlords also pay USC


    (2) many vacant properties may not meet our high standard remember we dumped bedsits do you force LL to bring them up to standard?


    (3) hence the diminishing supply.


    (4) keep smoking that left wing weed some day it may not be SW supplied


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,971 ✭✭✭ Assetbacked


    The RPZs exist for a reason, while I would have sympathy for property owners outside of the RPZs, the reality is that these areas are so designated as society has evolved to concentrate a lot of economic and social activity in these areas meaning they are extremely valuable. It is better that they are occupied given their value and there needs to be an incentive to do this.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,657 ✭✭✭ zweton


    Out of curiosity has anyone's landlord brought down your monthly rent? E.g your now on covid payment and were paying too much in the first instance.


Advertisement