The eviction ban

Talk of compliant notices is just an example of the dishonesty now that is employed in these systems.

A notice of termination is really quite simple, there is a certain number of days notice, what is needed is:

1. Issuing notice of the correct duration to the tenant so they are given the correct time to make plans.
2. A signed declaration that this is for ONE of the valid reasons allowable under the lease (no requirement to be specific on which).

From the tenants perspective that is all the information that they need.

The RTB can then check up on 2. if and when they like and also check that the landlord does not re-rent without offering to the tenant.

There is no way in advance that any of the reasons to issue notice can be verified, so requiring any other information on there is pure BS.

That's all that is needed, legally or otherwise.

Requiring that it be sent to the RTB on the same day to be valid (why?) or that the landlord should email the RTB footage of them performing the Haka in Stephen's Green or whatever else they might ask for is pure bullsh!t the sole purpose of which is to entrap them procedurally, by increasing the chance that the notice can be challenged.

It's entrapment any which way you look at it.

Demand isn't a problem anyone is trying to fix either.

A housing and accommodation shortage is a natural consequence of an undersized housebuilding sector, while at the same time encouraging multi nationals to set up here where they have a skills need that cannot be filled by the local population.

That and our demographics.

Congrats on reducing your stress and increasing your quality of life!

Demand is also People choosing not to emigrate as they did in the past. Also a backlog of people not moving out for a decade or more. There's huge pent up legacy demand.

Population is growing through inward migration largely and this is putting pressure particularly on rental.

This is no surprise to anyone and was a question asked when there was a LinkedIn jobs announcement a few years ago - where will your new workers live? Rather than build it and they will come, it was they will come and then we'll build it and forgot to do the last part.

Bringing in high paying jobs filled by new arrivals is all well and good when the capacity is there. When it's not, well what you have is these new workers being able to outcompete the people already here.

Our industrial policy needs a more holistic approach, to consider all constraints when looking at what sectors to grow.

I don't know but I think because tenancies are much longer in Germany and similar places, the rising rents for new tenancies means people don't move much anymore.

https://newsrnd.com/news/2023-04-03-housing-shortage-in-germany--%22pensioners-don-t-stay-in-large-apartments-for-fun-and-frolic%22.BkZV-TduW3.html

I think you are making a similar mistake as Sinn Fein when they object to higher end rental developments. A property might be built at the upper end of the market but this will have a knock-on effect throughout. If a better off tenant takes up the property, then they are no longer competing with less well-off tenants lower down, less likely to bid up rents at lower levels.

I'm not sure you would be scaring off corporate landlords. I would not be surprised to find out that it is the norm in places where corporate landlords are fairly common that, when they sell an apartment block to another landlord, they don't evict all the tenants and try to sell all the apartments individually on the open market.

More likely the prospective buyer looks at the price the development is going for and the overall rental yield.

You're the person the brought up the repairs. Did you even read your own post?

Worth labouring the point.

It's a pyramid. Very Narrow at the top and very wide at the bottom. You'll never build enough at the top to move enough people alone the ladder accommodate everyone at the bottom. I'd argue Supply isn't all the same.

And I accept your point re: increasing social housing.

So if the problem is that it is very narrow at the top, as you say, then the solution is to build more at that end making it less narrow. Overall increase the number of units at the top thereby soaking up the well off renters leaving fewer competing lower down. At the end of the day, supply is supply.

I don't think vacancies is a big issue in institutional investments and I note that the article you posted where it was anecdotally suggested this was the case, was dated April 2001, very much in the grip of Covid restrictions when not so many were arriving in the country to take up jobs. I do agree with one of the experts in the article, however, who suggested that vacant properties should be taxed heavily but I think this may affect smaller holders of properties rather than the institutions.

Well it doesn't seem to have worked or this this thread wouldn't exist.

I guess if the numbers are small we didn't really need yet another tax for owning property.