Greed is going to destroy this country again

steddyeddy · 30-12-2012 06:38PM

GRMA wrote: »

Landlords have forever exploited tenants, it can't be pinned solely on upwards only rent reviews.

As Irish people we should know all about landlords

Becuase it happens that doesn't make it ok.

Sulla Felix · 30-12-2012 06:39PM

I don't think I'd like to see the govt set rent rates. However it could incentivize renting out vacant units. Afaik the landlord gets a reduced rates charge on vacants, that could do with changing.

steddyeddy · 30-12-2012 06:40PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

i think what he might mean is that a contract is a contract the world over
if it is in the contract then you are screwed - simple
as for changing it , it was tried , it would be un constitutional to amend the law as it would endanger property rights and land law

and as we know in this country changing laws willy nilly can have un foreseen repercussions , so they have decided best not to go messing with it

new contracts can be argued but legacy ones cant - such is life
,one question , if so much prop is empty , could the coffee shop owner just not get a new premises near the old one on a new contract , would make sense if he had a good trade in the area

there is a lot more to this story that what you are told i think

I dont see how this is surprising. There are many shops that have closed due to high rents. The owner is moving because to another area with better rents.

GRMA · 30-12-2012 06:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Becuase it happens that doesn't make it ok.

You've picked me up wrong, I agree wholeheartedly that it is completely wrong and disgraceful and shouldn't be allowed happen.

But pinning the blame on upwards only rent reviews is missing the root of the problem which you precisely say is greed. You still get exploitation where upwards only rent reviews are not allowed.

Bullseye1 · 30-12-2012 06:41PM

Now that they have brought in a property tax it should be possible to reduce local authority rates (although you do have to ask what exactly does a business get for their money?). Most pay their own water supply and rubbish collection.

steddyeddy · 30-12-2012 06:42PM

Clerys were also hit by high rents. Luckily they were saved though as I have a particular soft spot for clerys.

CLERYS, THE 159-YEAR-OLD department store on Dublin’s O’Connell Street, has been sold to an American private equity group, just hours after it was placed into receivership.
The move means that almost 350 people who work at the iconic store will keep their jobs after the store was bought by investment group Gordon Brothers.
The giant department store will continue to trade as usual.
However Guineys & Co, the nearby department store on Dublin’s Talbot Street which is a sister shop to Clerys, has been put into liquidation and will close down. Clerys’ two retail park shops in Leopardstown and Naas are also to close.
A total of 29 jobs will be lost.
The Clerys Home Furnishings store in Blanchardstown in Dublin closed on 16 September with the loss of 16 jobs.
Clerys had been struggling financially in recent years with declining footfall in its flagship store and high rents on its retail park shops.
Clerys opened in 1853 and was one of the world’s first purpose built department stores. It was purchased by the Guiney family in 1941.
Michael Guiney stores, which are a separate company, are not affected.

dj jarvis · 30-12-2012 06:43PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Becuase it happens that doesn't make it ok.

do you want a capitalist state or a communist one?
because if you have a problem with market forces , then im afraid its off to NK for you , if you dont then you have to deal with the **** that flows your way , no one forces you to sign upward only rent contracts
your Italian mate did and is now hinging about it , real shame his business has to close , but them are the breaks

really , did he not read, or did his solicitor not read before they signed it?
his lack of business acumen has cost him unfortunately

not wanting to sound harsh , but that is just how it works

Pottler · 30-12-2012 06:47PM

J Bourke wrote: »

Its not capitalism either, its stupidity. Rather than having some amount of rent, the landlord now has NO rent. :rolleyes:

Agree fully. They jack the rent on the existing, stable tennant, tennant tries to negotiate, no go, tennant leaves, and Landlord, (the abject, greedy, dumb spanner)then proceedes to rent it to "pop-up shops" for buttons, another tennant after a long and expensive wait and at hugely reduced terms, or a charity at peppercorn rent. Just how dumb exactly are these landlords?

Before anyone says they don't want to reduce the rent to preserve the properties value, shaddup, they nearly always end up renting it again at hugely reduced rates and with crappy tenants, crappy shopfronts, or else it's empty and starts to rot. Pure, dumb, Greed. BTW DJ, an upward only review can be just 1c added to the last annual rent roll, fyi. Adding 40% is not compulsory, it's just greedy and shortsighted. I've seen this happen so many times, you need to ask just how thick these landlords are.

Agricola · 30-12-2012 06:48PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the landlords own the property, why shouldnt they be allowed set the prices

Im thinking of selling my old xbox. I might put it up on adverts for five thousand euro. why not.

Why not have a system where tenants cannot be extorted at the whim of landlords instead. It doesnt have to be all a one way street where either the tenants or the landlords have the upper hand all the time.
This unbridled "I own it so I charge what I like" is fine in many areas of life but when it comes to peoples homes or businesses, there must be laws in place to prevent people who are already under massive financial pressure from getting bled dry by unscrupulous landlords.

GKidd · 30-12-2012 06:48PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well all over Dublin rents have forced out dublin business owners which has been a further blow to the economy. Do you not think that Dublin retail owners have a problem with high rents.

I don't see your point here. If you are making a point you're not making it very well. If they can't afford the rent then close or move somewhere cheaper. The landlord doesn't owe them anything. Rent is a variable commodity. The business owner entered into a written agreement when signing the lease knowing full well what the risks were. If they didn't then they should not be in business.

Should the landlord wish to alter the arrangement when the lease expires then the tenant is left with 2 options...

What part of this is troubling you?

KyussBishop · 30-12-2012 06:54PM

There are a couple of instances I've heard of (purely anecdotal), of building owners in around the city center receiving an offer for their building, and being threatened with violence or vandalism (i.e. arson), if they don't sell it on.

Property acquisition, particularly in around the city center, is a pretty simple/obvious way to build up a racket/cabal, that can extort money out of business; these rent shenanigans would fit in nicely as part of the logical conclusion of that kind of racket.

WoollyRedHat · 30-12-2012 06:55PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

the landlords own the property, why shouldnt they be allowed set the prices

Im thinking of selling my old xbox. I might put it up on adverts for five thousand euro. why not.

You are free to do so, but your adamancy to refuse to drop the asking price means that nobody really benefits, you're stuck with an xbox which is all the while losing value furthermore.

I think that when you allow a system to prosper where only upward rising rents are allowed, then down the line you are bound to hit a cliff, with the landlords refusing to see that driving the car off the cliff with the tenant inside it ****s them both, the landlord receives 0 rental income, as opposed to trying to negiotate both with the bank ( in the case of high mortgages) and the tenant, rather than having the premises completely empty, like most become after an existing, long standing tenant leaves.

dj jarvis wrote: »

do you want a capitalist state or a communist one?
because if you have a problem with market forces , then im afraid its off to NK for you , if you dont then you have to deal with the **** that flows your way , no one forces you to sign upward only rent contracts
your Italian mate did and is now hinging about it , real shame his business has to close , but them are the breaks

really , did he not read, or did his solicitor not read before they signed it?
his lack of business acumen has cost him unfortunately

not wanting to sound harsh , but that is just how it works

First of all that's a bit of a stretch, government does and has involved itself in economic forces, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. NAMA could be regard as the latter. In any case, regulation within the market does not make it communist, it's still capitalism. You want pure capitalism, then you reverse the clock a hundred years or so... except that people like Hoover in U.S.A did it back then, and it didn't work out too well in the end.

Pottler · 30-12-2012 07:03PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

There are a couple of instances I've heard of (purely anecdotal), of building owners in around the city center receiving an offer for their building, and being threatened with violence or vandalism (i.e. arson), if they don't sell it on.

Property acquisition, particularly in around the city center, is a pretty simple/obvious way to build up a racket/cabal, that can extort money out of business; these rent shenanigans would fit in nicely as part of the logical conclusion of that kind of racket.

It happens, but it's rare. I can see this issue from both sides, my family rent city center shops, fairly well known ones, and rent is a huge cost, a landlord stepping in at renewal with a dopey level of upward renewal has the power to bring the shutters down.

Equally, I own property, so I can see what the issues are from both sides. But, to jack rent on a good paying tenant, forcing them to close, is just plain dumb bad business. Nothing else at all. Utter blind greed, tinged with ruthlessness.

I have also listened to a fair few landlords whinging at me that they have done this, tenant left and now they are struggling to get ANY paying tenant in. My usual response is "Good, tough shyte, what goes around comes around pal". The muppets usually end up re-letting the premises at hugely reduced rates and whinging about how hard it is to get good tennants. WTF is that all about?

Einhard · 30-12-2012 07:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but the borrow a phrase from Spock (I apologise) the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. If he forces out businesses people lose their jobs and the economy suffers when people cant spend their money there. The economy cant suffer because a landlord needs to pay a excessive mortgage.

But one can argue that if the landlord goes bust, then all the people he owes money to lose out too and the economy takes a hit. It's too easy to blame the landlords, when quite often they need to meet huge payments on their loans. What's needed is serious reform of the bankruptcy legislation in this country and/or debt/forgiveness. Just as the tenant has to pay his bills, so too does the landlord.

GRMA wrote: »

So its ok for landlords to jack up rents if they are stuck for a few bob, to bleed their tenants dry?

Of course it's greed. It's exploitation.

So it's ok for the tenant to increase their prices if they have to pay the bills?

To state "if they are stuck for a few bob" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the matter. Being forced into bankruptcy is a tad more extreme than being stuck for a few bob, and you well know it.

One of the problems with this country is people are always looking out for an easy target to last out at. it saves them actually having to take a close look a problem. And landlords now are the easy target. God forbid we actually try to take an objective look at the situation and figure out a solution that works for all- no, far easier to just attack and condemn without taking on board the very real issues on all sides.

dj jarvis · 30-12-2012 07:13PM

Pottler wrote: »

Agree fully. They jack the rent on the existing, stable tennant, tennant tries to negotiate, no go, tennant leaves, and Landlord, (the abject, greedy, dumb spanner)then proceedes to rent it to "pop-up shops" for buttons, another tennant after a long and expensive wait and at hugely reduced terms, or a charity at peppercorn rent. Just how dumb exactly are these landlords?

Before anyone says they don't want to reduce the rent to preserve the properties value, shaddup, they nearly always end up renting it again at hugely reduced rates and with crappy tenants, crappy shopfronts, or else it's empty and starts to rot. Pure, dumb, Greed. BTW DJ, an upward only review can be just 1c added to the last annual rent roll, fyi. Adding 40% is not compulsory, it's just greedy and shortsighted. I've seen this happen so many times, you need to ask just how thick these landlords are.

i fully understand that concept , but its still upwards not down , that is the point of the thread

i dont agree with it at all , think its counter productive , but thats how it is + and a lot of assumptions are being made about premises being left idol for a eternity , just not the case
my local SC have had LOTS of business come and go in the last 2 years , and only one unit has taken longer than 4 months to get tenants
so i suppose its all location location location

dont like the contract - dont renew and move on , why whinge about it

dj jarvis · 30-12-2012 07:15PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont see how this is surprising. There are many shops that have closed due to high rents. The owner is moving because to another area with better rents.

did i miss something in a post , because that is the first time i have seen that mentioned that he was moving and re opening , as far as i read the thread , he was shutting up shop for good can, someone highlight that for me?

Pottler · 30-12-2012 07:15PM

Einhard wrote: »

One of the problems with this country is people are always looking out for an easy target to last out at. it saves them actually having to take a close look a problem. And landlords now are the easy target. God forbid we actually try to take an objective look at the situation and figure out a solution that works for all- no, far easier to just attack and condemn without taking on board the very real issues on all sides.

Sorry Einhard, can't agree, like I said, the units get rented out again, usually at a much reduced rate. You are confusing the issue. You are mixing up greed with commercial pressures, they're not the same. A fair few of the lads I know who are at this don't have mortgages, they've owned the units outright from the beginning. As for "the Landlords costs??" Do you know many landlords? They're not too big on incurring costs, of any kind.

dj jarvis · 30-12-2012 07:19PM

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

You are free to do so, but your adamancy to refuse to drop the asking price means that nobody really benefits, you're stuck with an xbox which is all the while losing value furthermore.

I think that when you allow a system to prosper where only upward rising rents are allowed, then down the line you are bound to hit a cliff, with the landlords refusing to see that driving the car off the cliff with the tenant inside it ****s them both, the landlord receives 0 rental income, as opposed to trying to negiotate both with the bank ( in the case of high mortgages) and the tenant, rather than having the premises completely empty, like most become after an existing, long standing tenant leaves.

First of all that's a bit of a stretch, government does and has involved itself in economic forces, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. NAMA could be regard as the latter. In any case, regulation within the market does not make it communist, it's still capitalism. You want pure capitalism, then you reverse the clock a hundred years or so... except that people like Hoover in U.S.A did it back then, and it didn't work out too well in the end.

well thats all dandy,
but the current government already got advice from the AG that they can not change it retroactively , only new contracts can be affected ,
so im really missing your point , they looked at it and cant do anything

so what is the point of whinging about it
also i understand plenty about mccarthyism and j edgar hoover, but what has that go to do with what i said , i think you misunderstood me maybe

Einhard · 30-12-2012 07:38PM

Pottler wrote: »

Sorry Einhard, can't agree, like I said, the units get rented out again, usually at a much reduced rate. You are confusing the issue. You are mixing up greed with commercial pressures, they're not the same. A fair few of the lads I know who are at this don't have mortgages, they've owned the units outright from the beginning. As for "the Landlords costs??" Do you know many landlords? They're not too big on incurring costs, of any kind.

I'm not mixing anything up, or confusing any issues. The fact is that the OP claimed that the landlord in question was being greedy. My point is, that the OP doesn't know the facts of the situation. The landlord's primary motivation could indeed be greed, in which case he's to be condemned. However, it's quite likely that, having secured a massive mortgage to pay for the property, and possibly having used his family home and other assets as security, he now wishes to avoid bankruptcy and ruin. That puts things in an entirely different light, but people deliberately ignore that facet because it's easier to erect targets and then lash out at them.

As for costs- the biggest cost a landlord will face is their mortgage.

gurramok · 30-12-2012 07:49PM

So a landlord took out a Celtic tiger mortgage, and how exactly is that the tenants problem? If a landlord cannot sustain his business in a capitalist market, he is not fit to be a landlord.

GRMA · 30-12-2012 07:51PM

Einhard wrote: »

So it's ok for the tenant to increase their prices if they have to pay the bills?

To state "if they are stuck for a few bob" is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the matter. Being forced into bankruptcy is a tad more extreme than being stuck for a few bob, and you well know it.

One of the problems with this country is people are always looking out for an easy target to last out at. it saves them actually having to take a close look a problem. And landlords now are the easy target. God forbid we actually try to take an objective look at the situation and figure out a solution that works for all- no, far easier to just attack and condemn without taking on board the very real issues on all sides.

This is the same excuse landlords in the 1800's gave for exploiting their tenants. Was that ok?

Its hard to build up a successful business, especially in these times. Being forced to relocate can utterly destroy it, so many people are trapped and are easy prey to these landlords because moving isn't an option.

Einhard · 30-12-2012 07:52PM

gurramok wrote: »

So a landlord took out a Celtic tiger mortgage, and how exactly is that the tenants problem? If a landlord cannot sustain his business in a capitalist market, he is not fit to be a landlord.

Eh, but if he can sustain his business by raising rents then it becomes the tenants problem. Hence the thread.

dj jarvis · 30-12-2012 07:54PM

gurramok wrote: »

So a landlord took out a Celtic tiger mortgage, and how exactly is that the tenants problem? If a landlord cannot sustain his business in a capitalist market, he is not fit to be a landlord.

how is it the landlords fault that the tenant signed a upwards only contract , with the full knowledge that it will either stay static or go up
christ , do we have to babysit every person in this state`?

read the contract - understand it - make sure you can honor it
if you can then dont sign it , what are people not getting about this

and this is regardless of the landlord being a money grabbing lizard , you should ALWAYS assume they are and work forward from that

boo hoo , he put the rent up after he told me he was going to

gurramok · 30-12-2012 07:54PM

Einhard wrote: »

Eh, but if he can sustain his business by raising rents then it becomes the tenants problem. Hence the thread.

And he cannot get a new tenant at the higher rate? Then its the landlords problem.

mikemac1 · 30-12-2012 07:55PM

If the landlord owns an empty property do the council still charge the landlord for rates?

Not sure how they'd calculate it with no turnover.
Maybe it's a fixed rate

I'm just interested to know if empty units are paying

Einhard · 30-12-2012 07:57PM

GRMA wrote: »

This is the same excuse landlords in the 1800's gave for exploiting their tenants.

No it wasn't. Not even close. Most of the landlords in the 1800s had received their massive tracts of land through services rendered by their families in the previous centuries. Please stop inventing spurious analogies.

Its hard to build up a successful business, especially in these times. Being
forced to relocate can utterly destroy it, so many people are trapped and are
easy prey to these landlords because moving isn't an option.

But the landlord is often trapped as well. Obviously a proportion of landlords are greedy. But also, there are those with massive debts, often tied to their family homes and other assets. It's all very well for people here to yammer on about them being greedy, but I'm pretty certain if it were your family home and wellbeing in question, you wouldn't be quite so balse about it.

There needs to be a system whreby people can enter bankruptcy without the punitive outcomes currently involved. I understand that such a system is on the cards and the sooner it's implemented the better.

steddyeddy · 30-12-2012 07:57PM

Right guys I'll clarify the problem which my mio amico italiano encountered. He was renting in Ireland since the celtic tiger. He entered into a celtic tiger lease and was paying large rents which he didn't mind paying. He was unable to negotiate a reduction in rent during this period and the excuse given was only upward rent reviews are allowed. His lease ended recently and he wanted to negotiate a new one at a cheaper price. His landlord wanted a slight increase on the price.

My problem is that the celtic tiger featured a range of over priced commodities such as properties ect. Now that we have entered a recession that same renting prices have been sustained even though businesses are suffering and closing celit tiger rents still exists. this is damaging businesses and the economy.

I have no problem with landlords charging certain rents if realistic but paying a landlord celtic tiger rents in this day and age is extortion.

I particular I have a problem with this

A standard lease in operation for commercial property in Ireland provides for rents to be revised
to market value every five years. An upward-only rent review means that the rent payable after
a revision cannot be less than either the rent payable at the start of the lease or before the
revision.

Rents are too high and need to drop. Everyone here keeps saying a ll can charge whatever he likes ect but people are missing the point that closing businesses because the price charged by a tiny proportion of people (landlords) prevents economic recovery.

Einhard · 30-12-2012 07:57PM

gurramok wrote: »

And he cannot get a new tenant at the higher rate? Then its the landlords problem.

True, but obviously many landlords are getting new tenants at the higher rates. Or else they wouldn't be raising the rents.

steddyeddy · 30-12-2012 07:59PM

Einhard wrote: »

No it wasn't. Not even close. Most of the landlords in the 1800s had received their massive tracts of land through services rendered by their families in the previous centuries. Please stop inventing spurious analogies.

But the landlord is often trapped as well. Obviously a proportion of landlords are greedy. But also, there are those with massive debts, often tied to their family homes and other assets. It's all very well for people here to yammer on about them being greedy, but I'm pretty certain if it were your family home and wellbeing in question, you wouldn't be quite so balse about it.

There needs to be a system whreby people can enter bankruptcy without the punitive outcomes currently involved. I understand that such a system is on the cards and the sooner it's implemented the better.

Which is going to have a bigger effect on the economy; a couple of landlords out of business or a couple of businesses out of business?

dj jarvis · 30-12-2012 08:01PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right guys I'll clarify the problem which my mio amico italiano encountered. He was renting in Ireland since the celtic tiger. He entered into a celtic tiger lease and was paying large rents which he didn't mind paying. He was unable to negotiate a reduction in rent during this period and the excuse given was only upward rent reviews are allowed. His lease ended recently and he wanted to negotiate a new one at a cheaper price. His landlord wanted a slight increase on the price.

My problem is that the celtic tiger featured a range of over priced commodities such as properties ect. Now that we have entered a recession that same renting prices have been sustained even though businesses are suffering and closing celit tiger rents still exists. this is damaging businesses and the economy.

I have no problem with landlords charging certain rents if realistic but paying a landlord celtic tiger rents in this day and age is extortion.

I particular I have a problem with this

Rents are too high and need to drop. Everyone here keeps saying a ll can charge whatever he likes ect but It's people are missing the point that closing businesses because the price charged by a tiny proportion of people (landlords) prevents economic recovery.

knowledge is power , now i have the full info , no offense but that is not the story you started the thread with , not saying you done this intentionally, but does change the situation slightly

Greed is going to destroy this country again

Comments