Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
astrofool wrote: » Two reasons. Many landlords bought when prices were high, and have large mortgages on the property, so even though rents are high, they barely cover the mortgage (before other costs such as wear and tear, idle periods, tenancy registration etc.) come into play. Secondly, because we don't let landlords run a business. There is no incentive for a landlord to be a good landlord as they don't get tax deductions on all the money they put in, they can't claim all the interest as a business cost and all the laws are stacked against them if they get a bad tenant. If they are lucky, based on the value of the asset, they may make a 5-6% return on their investment. If a tenant overholds, if they damage the property, if interest rates rise, then the landlord will make a loss. The only way to make money as a landlord is to be the absolute worst type of person imaginable, don't put any money into the property, give tenants the very minimum that is required, ignore the tenancy laws, as the fine is often cheaper than letting them stay in the property while the PRTB makes it's decision (that will often fly in the face of common sense anyway). I can see why people are selling up or treating their tenants like sh*t and getting as much rent as they can to avoid going under. Not a landlord btw (and never intending to be one, in Ireland at least).
grahambo wrote: » I keep hearing about "The Homeless" problem In my eyes the only people that can help the homeless are themselves. There are 3 kinds of homeless people 1: Young women in their 20's with kids and the father "isn't around" 2: People with serious drink/drug problems 3: People who have genuinely lost everything through a series of bad events <= These are the vast minority There is no helping 1 and 2, and they are the vast majority. I saw on RTE news earlier in the week some woman living in a hotel for the last few years with 4 kids, the youngest of which was only a couple of months old, finally got a house off the council. WTF was she doing having another kid when she already had 3 and was living in the hotel? Her eldest child (7 or 8 years old maybe) had to be put up in a separate room because for insurance reasons the hotel can't have more than 4 people in a room. No sign of the Dad (Dad's) I know a Homeless guy in Raheny, He lives in St Annes park. His family don't want anything to do with him as he a terrible alcoholic. He needs to sort himself out before anything can be done to sort him out with accommodation. There is a reason as to why people are homeless, and generally the reason is because they have serious antisocial/substance abuse/addiction issues. No amount of money will be able to help them. There's no helping someone that won't help themselves. I know the above is harsh, but it's very true.
Vronsky wrote: » The problem is, like your post above illustrates is that amateur landlords expect renters to pay their mortgage for them and anything less than having the full mortgage covered by the rent is seen as a problem for them. It's not, and it's a distortion created by the pr machine of the landlords. .
A landlord should not expect to be able to put down a 20% deposit and walk away from a house that will in all probability have at least doubled in value by the end of the mortgage term and reap a 10x return on his initial investment
Vronsky wrote: » astrofool wrote: » Two reasons. Many landlords bought when prices were high, and have large mortgages on the property, so even though rents are high, they barely cover the mortgage (before other costs such as wear and tear, idle periods, tenancy registration etc.) come into play. Secondly, because we don't let landlords run a business. There is no incentive for a landlord to be a good landlord as they don't get tax deductions on all the money they put in, they can't claim all the interest as a business cost and all the laws are stacked against them if they get a bad tenant. If they are lucky, based on the value of the asset, they may make a 5-6% return on their investment. If a tenant overholds, if they damage the property, if interest rates rise, then the landlord will make a loss. The only way to make money as a landlord is to be the absolute worst type of person imaginable, don't put any money into the property, give tenants the very minimum that is required, ignore the tenancy laws, as the fine is often cheaper than letting them stay in the property while the PRTB makes it's decision (that will often fly in the face of common sense anyway). I can see why people are selling up or treating their tenants like sh*t and getting as much rent as they can to avoid going under. Not a landlord btw (and never intending to be one, in Ireland at least). The problem is, like your post above illustrates is that amateur landlords expect renters to pay their mortgage for them and anything less than having the full mortgage covered by the rent is seen as a problem for them. It's not, and it's a distortion created by the pr machine of the landlords. A landlord should not expect to be able to put down a 20% deposit and walk away from a house that will in all probability have at least doubled in value by the end of the mortgage term and reap a 10x return on his initial investment.
FTA69 wrote: » Nah they would just have flogged the water system off to a private company and you'd be paying through the bollix so some vulture fund can make a massive profit. That's what's happened pretty much everywhere else.
RoboRat wrote: » It's ironic, when the recession hit and my house plummeted in value by around 50% the younger folks on boards were saying that we got what we deserved, paying far too much for houses that weren't worth the value, this was always going to happen...nobody put a gun to our heads to buy a house. Then when the government said that 2nd time buyers needed to stump up 20% versus 10% for first time buyers we were told we created this mess, this was only fair and that nobody put a gun to our head to be in negative equity. Those measure were completely unfair to a generation as the only ones truly affected would be those who bought in the couple of years prior to the recession and paid their mortgages despite their economic situations. Again, this argument was countered with nobody put a gun to your head to buy a house. Now the tide has turned and we are expected to mass protest about it. I am expected to side up to the same people who sneered and said nobody put a gun to my head to buy a house, so they can buy a house. Ironically, I would protest about it as I feel that people should be able to buy a house and perhaps the people who were happy to sneer and kick a person when they are down will now realise that they were being a$$holes.
Colonel Claptrap wrote: » I love how hysterical people have become about that dangerous and mysterious villain: "he vulture fund"
cantdecide wrote: » That's not the world that hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in today.
“I think that dishonour must surely go to Lugus Capital, the new owners of the Leeside Apartments in Cork city – this Christmas, this vulture fund is placing the threat of eviction over the heads of . . . households, many with young children, at these apartments.
cantdecide wrote: » Your response to the explanation of the reasons why people are suffering economical harm because of past mistakes and mishandling at all levels is to jeer?
cantdecide wrote: » Please point to one post that calls for protests for free housing for all of us victims. Take your time and read slowly.
Aisha Zealous Telegraph wrote: » They need to address why there's a housing crisis, why are people homeless? Building houses and firing people into them without addressing any issues that led them to that position would be foolish.
LirW wrote: » That has little to do with the issue that a lot of young people can't afford to rent. While most jobs are in Dublin and therefore the workforce has to be close by young people struggle to even find a shabby room in a flat for inadequate money. These young people are not even thinking about buying. They are expected to pay top prices for bog standard apartments and they get kicked from all sides if they don't leave their parents house and start being independent. It is a sad state of things when people in their 30s have to move back home in order to save money for... maybe a house deposit. And now that affordability has capped, it pushed the average buyer further out and only the wealthier ones will be able to afford living close to their work. If you're born in a bad time, there's not much you can do. You still want to get on with your life and make the best out of it. My partner graduated in 2010 and everything that was waiting for him out there was the dole queue. He eventually managed to get a minimum wage job and he was incredibly happy about that. And from then until now the situation changed so fast, from no available credit to an incredibly tense market.
RoboRat wrote: » Hmmm not much different to 2005 so, I was paying €700p/m for a box room in a 2 bed flat in Rathmines. I had to move home in my late 20's to save up a deposit to buy a wreck of a house that left me with a one and a half hour commute to work. I got on with it.
seamus wrote: » It's pretty clear that you have an us -v- them attitude in relation to wealth & property, which doesn't surprise me tbh going on your post history. You're way off the mark though in reality. Not at all, the reality is that the world is rapidly becoming a more unequal place with fewer and fewer people owning more and more of the world's wealth in an era of rising employment instability and declining public services. Selling: Developers can make a shedload more money using their land to cram in loads of houses and sell them, than just sitting on it and letting prices rise. In an increasing market, €1m of land turns into €10m of land way quicker if you build and sell rather than speculate. Land banks are an essential part of being a developer and I'm sure they love seeing prices go up for doing nothing. But they don't arrange secret meetings where they conspire to not build for another year and gain 10% on their value of their banks. Why would I do that when I can turn that into a 50% gain with some building? Land is being hoarded on a huge scale, and it's something we see in the UK too on an even bigger scale. Likewise I think your assertion that developers don't cartelise and arrange a common consensus that suits their mutual long-term benefit is naïve at best to be honest. Land banking is an essential part of the flawed market-based housing system we have and it should be done away with. Likewise we have a pathological aversion to state housing in Ireland which sees us relying on private companies to provide a social need, currently that's working out to be a bloody disaster and despite your assertions that we can sit back and things will get better - I have a hard time believing it. What is needed in both Ireland and the UK is a program of the state building modern high-rise social housing and renting that out to key workers and young workers.
It's pretty clear that you have an us -v- them attitude in relation to wealth & property, which doesn't surprise me tbh going on your post history. You're way off the mark though in reality.
Selling: Developers can make a shedload more money using their land to cram in loads of houses and sell them, than just sitting on it and letting prices rise. In an increasing market, €1m of land turns into €10m of land way quicker if you build and sell rather than speculate. Land banks are an essential part of being a developer and I'm sure they love seeing prices go up for doing nothing. But they don't arrange secret meetings where they conspire to not build for another year and gain 10% on their value of their banks. Why would I do that when I can turn that into a 50% gain with some building?
LirW wrote: » Lots of people get on with it but it doesn't make the whole situation right.
Likewise we have a pathological aversion to state housing in Ireland which sees us relying on private companies to provide a social need, currently that's working out to be a bloody disaster and despite your assertions that we can sit back and things will get better - I have a hard time believing it. What is needed in both Ireland and the UK is a program of the state building modern high-rise social housing and renting that out to key workers and young workers.
splinter65 wrote: » No. Because I want one. I see other people have houses and I want one. I don’t want to hear about how they worked and saved for their house. I want one now so give it to me.
cantdecide wrote: » Someone very close to me was a resident of the Leeside apartment... This housing crisis is defined by a small minority of losers vs broader society. This minority is small in proportion but large in number. A stretched lower middle class too rich to enjoy the benefits of a welfare state and too poor to get on the property ladder with fewer opportunities than ever to get on in life, all scrambling to get gainful work and put a roof over their heads. Smart, hard working people struggling harder than their demographic ever had to historically with less than ever to look forward to. If you're on the other side of the fence, good for you.
RoboRat wrote: » This, I can never get my head around. Decades ago you could rent social housing and then they offered a buy out clause if you desired it. I never understood why the stopped doing this.
RoboRat wrote: » Rather than buying housing stock, each county should have a building division. They buy development land or get land with a compulsory purchase order if someone is sitting on development land They agree to build X amount of houses/ apartments each year and through scale of quantity they can reduce the costs on the builds which will allow them to charge a reasonable rent and still make a tidy profit to facilitate further housing. The houses can be purchased after a certain term with part of the rental payment being used as the initial deposit.
Idbatterim wrote: » Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis? The only time the scum bags we elect to the dail are interested in us, is come election time. I have voted fg previously, I'm done with them. If they think a few euro a week decrease in USC is enough to keep people onside. These same people who will be paying e700 plus for an average bedroom in an average house in an average part of Dublin IF they can even secure a viewing! People protested about water, this scandal is off the wall in comparison. This situation is ruining lives and costing people a fortune, unlike water! The only time they ever budge here, i.e. Politicians is when pressure is put on them and they collapse like a house of cards, as their populist nature compels them to. Whatever ideological reason they have against solving the issues show a disgusting lack of empathy. I don't see what their issue is, their mates in the banks, the estate agents will be creaming it in with more building. More jobs, more lpt... It's taken them 3 years minimum into the crisis to acknowledge the fact that apartment building is prohibitively expensive and wait more years for action. 3 years! 3 years of misery for tens of thousand of people of not more. What's the problem? They are overpaid, do nothing but talk it seems to me. So there you go coppinger etc. Someone ill probably never agree with on economic policy etc, but organise a protest for this issue and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you! After the previous water crisis and protest and where that lead to. The government will do a pretty quick about turn this time! Particularly as an election could be held any time!
FTA69 wrote: » Not at all, the reality is that the world is rapidly becoming a more unequal place with fewer and fewer people owning more and more of the world's wealth in an era of rising employment instability and declining public services.
Idbatterim wrote: » thanks permabear! As you highlight, this impossible situation is entirely of the governments making. I assume many on this forum who arent criticizing the situation, arent in Dublin or have inherited or got the house from the state for nothing or can buy / have bought in another county for a pittance! I will say this again, I know load of people on 50-60k that are totally stuck! If you arent in Dublin or havent tried to rent here in the past few years, most people dont have a bloody clue! Nobody is looking for anything for free! I want reasonably affordable accommodation for workers in particualr, if people are on very low incomes or state support, let them pay a reasonable amount, which would certainly be more than the 15% of the income that they currently pay , I am not sure if that figure is correct, but its one I see thrown about a lot! How can you ask one person to pay 15%, but people on the private market might pay 50% of wages if they want to live on their own?!
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » Or councils coming in and outbidding working couples on houses they then rent out to spongers for 40 euro a week. Its not fair and never will be.
Deleted User wrote: » In my case, I neither inherited nor bought my home for a pittance. What I did, however, was buy what I could afford. It’s not in my ideal area. It never occurred to me that I could go on a list and wait for a house to be given to me. What galls me about the current situation is the number of CEOs on big money keeping the “crisis “ in the public domain, aided by self interested politicians. Add in the Erica factor and you get an idea of why so many of us are turning our backs.
cantdecide wrote: » Apathy because scroungers? There are no cases where genuine hard working people can't do what you did? There are hoards and hoards of happy homeowners in Ireland. If you're one, good for you. That doesn't mean that someone trying to navigate the economic reality of post boom/ recession Ireland will face what you've faced. You also haven't faced what others have faced.
Deleted User wrote: » Having set up homes in both the 70s and 80s, I beg to differ.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
