PropQueries wrote: » Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT) has announced that all lectures, tutorials and practical classes will be delivered remotely for the academic year, as a result of Covid-19. There will be some serious surplus of rental accommodation in Waterford City this year. Irish Times link here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/waterford-it-will-deliver-lectures-tutorials-and-classes-remotely-1.4343014
Pelezico wrote: » You are right. Covid has been great for the economy and everyone has more money to buy houses. We should have introduced Covid years ago to boost the housing sector.
Hubertj wrote: » yea tough on the city and tough on the students. Classes are only part of the college experience.... meet new friends, new city, leave home etc..... not much fund sitting in front of a laptop in your gaff.
Pelezico wrote: » How will they complete lab work? Not good for students. They get a very raw deal.
schmittel wrote: » Heard the head of the college on radio earlier saying they would still be conducting labs. This is how he justified charging full fees!
Pelezico wrote: » Well, students are the least at risk group, all young and healthy. This is a poor decision.
tom_murphy112 wrote: » Sure students are the least at risk group. But that doesn't stop them from spreading it to other vulnerable people! Look at how well college/school openings in the USA have gone so far, a good few already have had to shutdown.
tom_murphy112 wrote: » This maybe beyond this thread, but I follow a guy on YouTube based in NYC that does laptop repairs and last year he was looking to rent out a new retail space for his repair business. He basically had so many issues, with how property owners was asking crazy prices and wanted to have really odd clauses in their contracts. About a year later, he goes over a lot of the places that refused to reduce the rent and are still vacate, I wonder if this will eventually happen here as well - Thoughts ? Interesting video to watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk5o6cbq_Qs
Taylor365 wrote: » Not uncommon for commercial properties to be empty for 10+ years.
BEdS_83 wrote: » yeah, was talking to my wife about this a few days ago, keep reading that people saved a lot during the lockdown =/ but I didn't, 100% it's my fault of course, but I couldn't even see from where I would save, bill kept coming, rent had gone up 2 weeks before they lock that out. spending more on heater and electricity, supermarket bill went trough the roof.
fliball123 wrote: » This argument is null and void we have had more births than death for at least the last 30 years and apparently we are going to have another baby boom next year due to covid.
OwlsZat wrote: » My apartment block is fully of vacant apartments. The same ads hanging on Daft at mental prices the last 2,3,4 months. I'd assume its because they have all availed of mortgage holidays allowing them to suspend the old free market economics so many bang on about. Hardly seems fair given the exorbitant rent they've creamed over the last few years.
The_Conductor wrote: » We need a way to fairly tax rental income- while at the same time disincentivising landlords from keeping units empty (irregardless of whether or not they have debt associated with the properties- and keep in mind over a third of Irish rental properties are not mortgaged).
schmittel wrote: » You cannot really penalise landlords for holding vacant properties whilst at the same time banning evictions for unpaid rent. If I was a landlord with a debt free property that became vacant during Covid, I would not look for another tenant in the short term.
The_Conductor wrote: » You could structure property tax in a fairer manner- so that it is paid by the resident of the property, rather than the owner, and in the event that the property is a residential property and not let, then it incurs a higher rate of property tax- so there is an impetus to let property rather than leaving it vacant- and in the case of REITs etc- they should not be allowed to offset property tax against rental income (as they currently are doing)?
awec wrote: » What? How is it fairer to tax someone against an asset they do not own? All this will do is screw tenants even further, they pay rent, and as the property becomes more desirable up goes the rent and up goes the tax. The person accumulating the wealth should be the one paying the tax. If you want to incentivise against vacancy, then introduce lower property tax rates for any property registered with the PRTB as being a residential letting.
The_Conductor wrote: » I think having the resident pay it- is fair- but I also think there should be a super-levy on vacant residential units to be paid by the landlord- to actively discourage them from leaving the units vacant.
schmittel wrote: » And you'd also have to wonder why a tenant who is not making rent payments with impunity would pay the property tax.
schmittel wrote: » It would make more sense to address the question of why landlords are currently incentivised to keep units vacant.
The_Conductor wrote: » If you leave collection with the Revenue Commissioners- its hard to avoid paying it without a damn good reason- and would probably have to be paid (or subvented) by the local authority for HAP and other recipient payees in any event.
The_Conductor wrote: » Its the same reason that unpaid rent is not included in landlord insurance in Ireland- but is elsewhere. Tenents know they can play the system and get away with it. Providing they don't cause damage to a unit- a landlord is unlikely to waste his/her time chasing them anyway.
The_Conductor wrote: » Yes- I see all the media about people saving thousands- funny how I don't know anyone who did. Bills went up- sure, some people saved on childcare- but just as likely they massively increased expenditure in other areas. I know I did.
