PropQueries wrote: » Double glazed windows, a bed, couch, shower, oven, sink, a few presses and a heater is all single young renters are looking for. About €15k all in. That will then allow the houses that are currently rented by the room to 20 year olds to be made available to actual families to buy or rent.
Hubertj wrote: No I wouldn’t agree and you can’t draw that conclusion from the article. To me, it points to a systemic failure of public services.
fliball123 wrote: » and then being on the hook when the 20 year old decides not to pay the rent and losing money on insurance and the like..thanks but no thanks too much of a risk better to use it to keep stock in.I could get stock in bigger bulk and get a better discount at absolutely zero risk
cnocbui wrote: » And €5000 a year on heating.
PropQueries wrote: » I would LOVE to see the statistics on the percentage of renters who don't pay their rent. I would guess it's a lot lot lower than the percentage of investment property borrowers who don't meet their loan repayments. But if an investment property owner defaults on his loans and keeps his investment property for the next ten years, people have no problem. But if a 22 year old losses his job and misses his rent people would like him to be turfed out the next day. I love the hypocrisy in this country. In either case, with HAP, the councils long-term lease agreements etc., the probability of a landlord not getting his rent money is the lowest it has been in the history of the state IMO
Experience_day wrote: » And yet from what I read there has been an exodus of smaller landlords in favour of larger reits who can absorb such losses. I have left my own house be empty rather than take the risk of renting as its almost impossible to get someone out...
PropQueries wrote: » Landlords are leaving for primarily two reasons and primarily two reasons only: 1. They purchased their investment property during the celtic tiger years and the property has finally exited negative equity and their bank is forcing them to sell, or 2. They purchased the investment property between 2012 and 2014 to avail of the CGT tax reliefs that they can only avail of now. And the percentage of landlords leaving the market over the past three years hasn't even been that large anyway.
PropQueries wrote: » Landlords are leaving for primarily two reasons and primarily two reasons only:
PropQueries wrote: » You're really overestimating the cost of heating a home there. What energy rating are the majority of houses that were built pre 2010? Are there really c. 2 million households in the country paying c. €5,000 a year on heating?
Browney7 wrote: » https://m.independent.ie/news/risks-return-to-failed-housing-policies-of-the-celtic-tiger-era-housing-minister-urged-to-scrap-shared-equity-scheme-in-housing-plan-40119194.html Politicians star in "playing politics" shocker but interesting to see nonetheless. No doubt it's just FG putting out a "you see, we said it wouldn't work, same old FF" without undermining at cabinet level so to speak. Still, hard to disagree with them
Villa05 wrote: » Is it the foot soldiers or managers/leadership that create the systems
PropQueries wrote: » According to that article: "The letter also gives an example of how the €75m could be repurposed, as there are currently 4,000 homes within Dublin City Council which have been earmarked for affordable purchase or rental." So, given that I doubt DCC can be buying currently occupied properties, does that mean DCC has already identified and engaged with the owners of c. 4,000 empty homes in Dublin City alone?
schmittel wrote: » Good point, certainly sounds logical.
cnocbui wrote: » Is there an annual NIMBY award? I have found this years winner. Congratulations Mrs K!https://www.independent.ie/news/overturned-planning-permission-for-358-student-bed-spaces-in-leafy-south-dublin-40118129.html
jill_valentine wrote: » Think people expressing doubts at the liveability of spaces over shops could do with a jaunt around the current state of Dublin rental market for a bit of a shock. Here is a shed in Finglas with a plug in heater for nearly a thousand euros a month, and it's far from the worst -https://www.daft.ie/for-rent/studio-apartment-cloonlara-finglas-dublin-11/2881942 And just for fun, here is a warning to tenants from Belgrave that your 1200 a month flat could fall apart if you exercise in it -https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tenants-told-that-workouts-could-make-flats-fall-apart-jngfgn8hk
zisdead wrote: » I lived over a shop for a year. Here is is the Google maps link for the units.https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3685106,-6.239514,3a,58.2y,110.29h,92.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ss579l8QfX5rVTPkXattbGQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Ds579l8QfX5rVTPkXattbGQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D180.2018%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 Was grand. Shop wasn't that busy, closed at 6pm every eve so was quiet when i got in from work and was the same to heat as any other apartment I ever lived in. The guy saying it costs 5k to heat one of these needs his/her head examined.
PropQueries wrote: » And given that they have now obviously identified at least c. 4,000 currently long-term vacant potential homes in the city and the owners are obviously interested in having their properties rented or purchased in the very near future, wouldn't it be far far cheaper for the taxpayer (i.e. me and you), to slap a 10% annual vacant tax on them until they rent them out or sell them rather than spending untold millions of euro of limited taxpayer funds buying or renting them. The taxpayer wins. The renters win. The families looking to buy a home in the city win. That is, everybody wins.
The aim of the scheme is to acquire and refurbish properties to a standard for rental accommodation; in return, making them available for social housing while improving cityscapes and reducing homelessness. Homeowners have the option to sell or lease their property to the City Council.
donnaille wrote: » I'd take that shed over this 'stylish' DIY attic conversion. I guess the advantage with this one is that bills are covered - additional stove flue for extra warmth.https://www.daft.ie/for-rent/studio-apartment-turners-cross-co-cork/2915262
schmittel wrote: » It seems the carrot has worked rather than the stick in this case, assuming these properties were identified via the vacant homes scheme: What is a bit odd is that government ministers and councillors recently were saying these properties did not exist. Many posters on here are still saying it!
cnocbui wrote: » The reason you were able to rent and live in that is because it was liveable and therefore was made available. That is essentially a house with a shop tacked on at the bottom. In other words, it's built like a house in terms of accommodation and heating. This is the sort of thing I am talking about: Take note of the chimneys. These buildings have solid stone or block walls with no insulation whatsoever. The windows are single pane sash. I doubt they have central heating. I have lived in a solid stone building with sash windows on the west coast from April onwards and it was very cold and draughty. Heating was via open fireplaces. Which were utterly incapable of heating the structure and provided more cheer than heat, and consumed a prodigious amount of timber I had to spend a considerable amount of time chopping and carrying. Old stone or block structures such as these require dry-lining. I know a German orthopaedic surgeon who bought an old stone cottage in Connemara. The owner had built a modern house nearby with double glazing and all mod cons , rather than live as per the 1800's in the old family home. This was in the 90's. Yer man spent IE£ 45,000 buying the house and another IE£ 35,000 getting it dry-lined and renovated. Lovely result - most of the upstairs was made a sitting room with two very large triangular windows either side of the stone chimney, giving lovely views over a bay to the Twelve Bens. Now convert into 2021 money. This idea people have of taking a 2-3 storey uninsulated, stone or block, single glazed building, with open fireplaces, and turning it into a warm and comfortably habitable modern accommodation for €15,000 is fanciful rubbish An old stone walled building is going to require a significant amount of renovation and insulation if you are aiming to get the heating costs reasonable.
PropQueries wrote: » And It’s just more of apparently limited taxpayer money being transferred to a few millionaires. And we will all be paying for this transfer of wealth through all sorts of tax increases and reduced local services in the very near future IMO As David McWilliams said before: “People who let good assets – like an old Victorian building – go bad are not too poor, they are too rich. If they were poor, they would mind the asset, take care of it, make it work for them, generate a return and bring the asset into commercial use. Only the truly wealthy can be truly wasteful. If owners are not waking up in the middle of the night wondering “How will I make this property pay?” then the price of holding that asset is not too high, it is too low.“
schmittel wrote: » Would 60k do it?
cnocbui wrote: » Do what?
