Investment Fund Vs Housing Charity bulk buying

There is a lot of negativity when Investment Funds bulk buy versus when Housing Charities like Tuath Housing bulk buys housing.

Levys seem to only apply to the Investment funds.

My Question is, How can one practice been seen as negative when both contribute to the a housing crisis in terms of potential owner/occupiers purchasing houses?

zell12

One provides housing at the market rental rate for profit, the other at a differential rental (% of income) rate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663313#Comment_121663313

And how does that benefit owner/occupiers who want to purchase housing.

They both contribute to the housing crisis and make people who could afford homes, homeless.

Peregrinus

It doesn't make them homeless; it just makes it more difficult for them to buy a home. There's a huge difference between not owing a home and being homeless.

If not owning a home is the same thing as "homeless" then it would follow that the contrary policy, of discouraging housing charities or investment funds from buying homes, by limiting the supply of homes for rent, would make renters homeless.

I don't think our housing problem is going to be resolved by arguing over the proper allocation of a fixed housing stock between renters and owners.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663325#Comment_121663325

If you could afford a home but you can't buy a home and you can't live at home with family. What does that make you?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663335#Comment_121663335

A renter, typically.

Str8outtaWuhan

The investment funds aren't the ones refusing to go before the housing committee. At least they have nothing to hide 🤔.

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663364#Comment_121663364

I was reading about that. Must be some scandal there alright. Lots of scurrying around from lots of people to hide things going on at the moment i bet.

Supercell

As long as the houses/apartments are in the end being rented out then i really don't have a problem with either. People need place to live and if these places are full then that need is being fulfilled. We need more houses and apartments built overall, with the government playing their part and not waiting on the private sector to do it for them.

RichardAnd

I'm of the opinion that property within the Irish state should be available for purchase to Irish citizens only. I do not like the idea of international funds' owning property here in bulk. It's very neo-liberal, and it's preventing Irish people from being able to buy property.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121663354#Comment_121663354

Rent from who? Housing Charities bought the housing estates.

Str8outtaWuhan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121664067#Comment_121664067

We probably shouldn't have joined the EU then.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121667598#Comment_121667598

A renter from the person who owns the house that you are currently living in.

The number of current house purchasers who are actually living on the streets or out out of their cars is close to zero. They are living with family or, if as you stipulate that is not possible for them, they are living in rented accommodation.

RichardAnd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121667936#Comment_121667936

Indeed. I don't think that devil's bargains come with an opt out clause after 50 years, however.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121668552#Comment_121668552

The same applies to most people 10 to 12k

Most are not homeless as they have the option to like with family but choose not to as it would effect there social housing prospects.

I'm my eyes there is still no difference between what investment funds and doing vs Housing Charities.

But are hovering up estates and renting them out while completely reducing the pool of houses for both ftb and people wanting to sell which are both negative.

So there are no differences.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121668861#Comment_121668861

The difference, obviously, is that houses bought by purely commercial landlord entities increase the supply of houses for renters generally, while houses bought by social housing landlord entities increase the supply of housing for renters who qualify for social housing who are, on average, more economically disadvantaged than renters generally (and that purchasers).

The impact on the supply of houses for those seekin to purchase is of course the same in both cases.

The argument that we should discourage or impede both kinds of institutional landlord from buying rests on the unspoken assumption that all we should care about here is the balance between houses for rent and houses for purchase, that we should favour increasing the supply of houses for purchase in all cases, and that we don't care about the supply of housing for rent or about how it is allocated.

(Trying to support the argument by categorising people seeking to purchase houses as "homeless" while not categorising people seeking to rent houses as equally "homeless" was probably a mistake, but let that pass.)

You only have to state the unspoken assumption to see that it isn't obviously true. We might have an objective of increasing the supply of houses for purchase without that being our only objective. We might also have an objective of increasing the supply of housing available to the economically disadvantaged. We might take the view, for example, that those who can afford to purchase should be encouraged to do so and we should adopt measures to faciliate this, while those who cannot afford to purchase should also have housing available to them and we should adopt measures to encourage that too. That combination of objectives would make it rational to treat commercial landlords and social housing landlords differently.

That approach has its own problems, of course. There's a group in the middle who don't qualify for social housing but also can't afford, or for one reason or another don't want, to buy. This approach really screws them. Which highlights the point that the only really viable fix for the housing crisis is to increase the supply of housing, rather than to treat it as fixed and squabble about how it is to be divided.

My argument would be developers seeking development planning permission should be for owner occupied houses only or singular landlord owned housing or 10% Social Council housing.

Housing Charities and Investment funds should need to seek there own land, request planning, hire there own developers if they want to own there own estates.

Not developers getting planning for estates only for Investment funds and Charities stepping in to buy all the housing.

Investment funds with an open wallet from shareholders and Housing Charities with a tax paid open checkbook.

zell12

hoovering up family homes

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41317582.html

herbalplants

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672352#Comment_121672352

Ryanair are clever doing this.

Topgear on Dave

Ryanair home purchases a 'kick in the teeth' - Soc Dems (rte.ie)

The soc-dems of course wont like it because they could have gone for social housing and I seriously doubt that the Ryanair management like it either, theyre not a property company and their core business where they make profits is flying people around.

"Ryanair said: "In recent years the absence of affordable rental accommodation has been a major impediment to recruiting and training new Irish and European cabin crew members to Ryanair's in-flight team."

Mr O'Callaghan said people are shocked Ryanair has entered the residential property market."

Like my own company they probably having serious problems keeping staff particularly if they are required to transfer in/out young staff from abroad or work early starting, late finishing odd hour shifts as crew. As long as ryanair charge reasonable rents I dont see the issue.

"This accommodation, which is located one bus stop from Dublin Airport, will be rented at affordable rates to Ryanair cabin crew during their first year of employment."

baldbear

Ryanair will deduct accommodation costs from their staffs salary? They could put 3-4 in each house and take 800 off each tenant. They are hardly providing free accommodation .

What a joke.

howiya

Will Ryanair, or any other company that may do this, have to behave in the same manner as any other landlord, register with RTB etc?

Will employees have a BIK liability if they are charged an "affordable rent" rather than market rent?

Kaisr Sose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672385#Comment_121672385

Agree. It won't be universally popular (already being criticised) but any business would do this if it could. It's not like a Vulture Fund has bought them to rent back to the Council at max rates.

Indeed, if I recall correctly, some smaller businesses already are providing housing for their employees.

If I was Ryanair, I would have all this at arms length from core operation, with an external agency handling the letting and rent collection. Rent can be set at any rate, even below market rent.

Off payroll there would be no BIK as the accommodation provider is not the employer and the employee is paying 100% of the rent from their taxed earnings.

All round Ireland people are paying varying rents for identical properties (to their neighbours). There is no BIK type tax on people for benefiting from a lower rent than their neighbour.

herbalplants

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672837#Comment_121672837

I agree there will be no BIK.

Guinness did this, build houses to rent to their employees.

Plus in fairness industry like flying, you want your staff to have very little disturbances like commuting for them to be in time for the flights. I can see their point.

howiya

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672837#Comment_121672837

The reason I asked about BIK is that the "affordable rent" Ryanair are referring to in their statement is a fringe benefit or perk of employment with Ryanair. It's very different to the scenario you have presented of people benefitting from a lower rent than their neighbour from landlords who most likely are not their employer.

bikeman1

I would imagine Ryanair will charge a standard rent, not some of the extortionate rents that some of the new developments by investment companies charge.

Ryanair are not a property company and the income from this is cents for them.

The biggest cost to them would be not being able to fulfill the schedule that the want to run here for Summer 2024. They still haven’t finalised their schedule for the summer, most likely because they are short of crew and the reason being the cost of rent here or simply non availability.

A tech company has supposedly purchased a massive apartment block in Raheny beside the Dart station which is nearing completion.

Idbatterim

Laughable the social Democrats complaining. Its ridiculous this has to be done in the first place. Look at it, Right beside the airport and its more low density housing...

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121672683#Comment_121672683

It’s not about providing it cheaply as much as having the ability to house people close to their job; especially (presumably) for those who have to report for work at 5am.

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121673262#Comment_121673262

This I agree with. I don’t understand why they are being criticised. They might actually have preferred an apartment block rather than houses had one been available. I’m sure it will be more densely occupied by Ryanair staff than if they had been sold privately or even to an AHB.

Idbatterim

All this talk of how complex the housing crisis is ? Bullshit. The amount of dereliction is insane. Low density housing going up right beside the airport. Commercial office space that is underocuppied, taking that land and labour from residential. No effective property tax rates to encourage elderly single or couples, from living in the endless amount of massively underoccuppied houses in suburbia... the planning system ? A farce. The cost of building and tax take ? Needs to be reduced. Its all very simple, if it weren't for politics. That is the problem...

Idbatterim

Given there is effectively no transport system in dublin ... I'd suggest building high density near employment centres, where people could walk and cycle to work, would he a good idea....

Imagine building staff accommodation on university campuses, hospital grounds... mental talk I know... its is just so complex though, let the government keep telling you that. Funny how quick they acted with covid and the money no object magic money trees response...