Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why is the cost of property, esp renting, so high in Dublin?

2456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,995 ✭✭✭Shelga


    You don't seem to understand how supply and demand works.

    There are far more people looking for housing than there is housing.

    It's literally that simple.

    People don't rent because they think it's good value, they rent because they need somewhere to lie so they can go to work. There are loads of cabin crew and airport workers living in that area - they want a nice enough place which is handy for getting to the airport, and that's what the going rate is.

    Of course I understand how supply and demand works, I'm not a simpleton.

    If you read my question you would see I am trying to understand why the supply level is so abysmal, compared to similar sized cities. It seems there are many factors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭Heres Johnny


    Not building into the sky in Dublin is an absolute crime for generations of politicians. Would solve the lot but somehow its still not happening.
    You're more likely to see a tall building, by tall I mean 4 or floors, of apartments in the suburbs than in the city.


  • Registered Users Posts: 588 ✭✭✭MSVforever


    Have you been recently? Renting in Berlin is very expensive now, not that far off Dublin prices.

    It's also not Germany's biggest industrial city where all the jobs are concentrated. There are loads of other big cities with jobs .- Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Cologne. Not the case in Ireland.

    Munich is even worse than Dublin and it's only the capital of Bavaria....lol...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,385 ✭✭✭lainey_d_123


    Shelga wrote: »
    Of course I understand how supply and demand works, I'm not a simpleton.

    If you read my question you would see I am trying to understand why the supply level is so abysmal, compared to similar sized cities. It seems there are many factors.

    But you're saying things like 'who thinks these are good value?' as if you think people are choosing to pay that much. That's just what happens when there isn't enough housing stock.

    Yes there are many factors. Not building up rather than out and the stall in construction during the crisis certainly didn't help anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,811 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    You don't seem to understand how supply and demand works.

    There are far more people looking for housing than there is housing.

    It's literally that simple.

    The recession killed many factories and businesses that sustained local towns around Ireland. Endless examples of this.

    All these workers, and all the people who depended on the workers wages for jobs now have no jobs.
    So there's f*ck all work in rural Ireland. All people of working age are forced to move to cities for work and education. Massive influx.

    To many, city life is better than country life, especially if you have no kids, so employers also move to cities to attract young workers, not back to the parishes in Carlow and Leitrim, which are empty anyways, so this fuels more migration.

    At the same time, house building stopped for about 5 years. Then a bunch of new housing regulations were introduced. Then a bunch of rental regulations too, and a bunch of regulations from the Central Bank. In the long term these will be good, short term not so good.

    As a result, there's f*ck all housing stock, it's more expensive to build a house, planning requirements are stricter and landlords are leaving the market in droves. People can't afford to buy so they rent. Pressure is massive and increased by government programs. Then you have vulture funds and speculators influencing conditions. Now people can't afford to rent.

    All this is very general but IMO it's a good 30second explanation.

    Also, it's mainly restricted to cities and their hinterland.
    You could buy a street in Leitrim for the cost of a 3 bed semi in a nice part of Dublin, but who wants to live in Leitrim.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Simple really, without a financial incentive to invest, there is no investment in rental property. REITS may be interested in investing in large cities, they certainly are not outside them.

    I must admit, I now get a kick when I see posts like yours decrying “amateur landlords” in derogatory tones, you get what you deserve when large investment funds buy out complete developments before they are finished so they can rent at the highest market price, and automatically increase year on year. Then take their profits out of the country. That’ll show those pesky small time amateur landlords, oh hold on, that means you pay higher rents. Nice.

    But you are correct in one sense, the incentives like high yields and capital appreciation should not be guaranteed, but they need to be a good possibility if you want to encourage investment and increase availability. Strange how at a time when rents are at an all time high, property values have increased, yet investors are leaving, go figure.


    Rents are set by what the renters are willing to pay compared to other available opions. Simple as that. Unless you are getting into a monopoly situation, and a fund buying a large block of apartments is a whole world removed from that. Supply will also effect it but who owns the property will not have as much of an effect except that perhaps a more efficient landlord might be willing to provide it at a lower rate than it would be worth an amateur's effort. The effect of a Euro taken out in profit by an investment fund is no different to a Euro taken out in profit from a foreign company manufacturing here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,995 ✭✭✭Shelga


    But you're saying things like 'who thinks these are good value?' as if you think people are choosing to pay that much. That's just what happens when there isn't enough housing stock.

    Yes there are many factors. Not building up rather than out and the stall in construction during the crisis certainly didn't help anything.

    I didn't say "who thinks these are good value"- I said no one of sound mind would think they were good value- ie, we can all agree rent in Dublin is extortionate.

    I am fully aware that people are paying these rents because they have no choice.

    Why is supply low?

    So far, main factors seem to be: not building up, population growth in Dublin in last 10-15 years, and it not being appealing to be a landlord.

    Why is it so expensive and cumbersome to build medium rise apartments in the city? Who has the power to change this?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,811 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Shelga wrote: »
    I didn't say "who thinks these are good value"- I said no one of sound mind would think they were good value- ie, we can all agree rent in Dublin is extortionate.

    I am fully aware that people are paying these rents because they have no choice.

    Why is supply low?

    So far, main factors seem to be: not building up, population growth in Dublin in last 10-15 years, and it not being appealing to be a landlord.

    Why is it so expensive and cumbersome to build medium rise apartments in the city? Who has the power to change this?

    The government.

    Remember that 70-80%% of voters are homeowners who have seen their house value increase dramatically in the last few years. Add to that we have record employment and wage growth. If I just bought a home yesterday after struggling for years, its in my best interest that my house appreciates and supply stays low.

    If you own a home right now and have private health insurance, you are immune to the two biggest issues this election.
    Why wouldn't you vote for FG or FF? No political party is going to pay your childcare or mortgage (although FG have made childcare slightly more bearable) The best you can hope for is the current system keeps going and we don't get a socialist government that lowers the value of your assets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭DubCount


    OP. The cost of buying property in Dublin is expensive, but is kept under control by Central Bank mortgage rules. Requirements for high deposits and restrictions on how much people can borrow relative to their income is stopping expensive becoming insane.

    The rental market is a different matter. Increases in population above housing supply, people who cant afford to buy and look the rent in stead, and government policy to use the rental market to meet social housing requirements. All this means demand for rental is going through the roof. Government policy is to control rental inflation with price control. This doesn't solve the problem though, because it doesn't create more supply to meet all that demand.

    If you want to address rental costs in Dublin, build more property, and make eviction of non-paying tenants quicker and easier. Unfortunately, there is not one politician who will knock on your door, who agrees with that. All of them -FG/FF/Lab/SF/PBP/Greens/SD/Independents are of the mistaken belief that rent controls alone is how to deal with rent inflation. It doesn't matter who you vote for - nobody is suggesting what really needs to be done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,863 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Rents are set by what the renters are willing to pay compared to other available opions. Simple as that. Unless you are getting into a monopoly situation, and a fund buying a large block of apartments is a whole world removed from that. Supply will also effect it but who owns the property will not have as much of an effect except that perhaps a more efficient landlord might be willing to provide it at a lower rate than it would be worth an amateur's effort. The effect of a Euro taken out in profit by an investment fund is no different to a Euro taken out in profit from a foreign company manufacturing here.

    So you are saying the tenants are actually setting the market rent? For many, there are no other available options, so the rental price set by the market is what they have to pay, not what they choose to pay, where have you been for the last 5 years?

    If the small, amateur investors, as you call them, leave the market, that will leave a couple of investment funds as the majority landlords, I wouldn't say we are a whole world removed from that right now, in fact, I suspect those large investors are the main source of new rentals coming onto the Dublin market.

    Investment companies require profits small time investors may settle for rent covering a mortgage and are more likely to have some personal contact with a tenant. A Reit on the other hand which buys whole new complexes will be able to set rents at the highest level as they are new to the market, and their business model is based on maximising yield by increasing rents to the highest amount at defined intervals allowed by the RTA. Expecting a REIT to give you a lower rate, because they are more efficient is naive.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cairn-sells-229-homes-to-landlord-for-78m-1.4135996?mode=amp

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/us-investor-has-2bn-to-spend-on-irish-construction-1.3995574

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/german-fund-patrizia-acquires-52-5m-docklands-development-1.3991919

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/institutional-investors-villains-or-heroes-of-housing-woes-1.3950625

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/urbeo-in-pole-position-for-282-apartments-at-cairn-s-citywest-scheme-1.3922333

    Comparing a vulture/investment fund to a manufacturing company is beyond comprehension. A property investment company requires limited staff to oversee their properties, many of the staff can be based in London or the US, manufacturers/IT employ large numbers of staff, I assume you are referring to Intel or Google etc who employ thousands?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Marius34 wrote: »
    The price for property in Dublin is very normal for that size and economy level, while the renting is absolutely to high.
    The main factor for the very high rents is due to the very low supplies of residential property over the past 10 years (due to residential construction crisis), especially for such a young city with growing population and booming economy.
    To make things worse, private landlords are highly taxed, typically 50-52% on the profit, I don’t know any other country with that high taxation for private landlords. And more than that property should be supplied furnished, whereas in many European countries it’s common to rent unfurnished (at least Denmark and Germany from my own experience).

    rogue tenants are not tolerated in germany either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    DubCount wrote: »
    OP. The cost of buying property in Dublin is expensive, but is kept under control by Central Bank mortgage rules. Requirements for high deposits and restrictions on how much people can borrow relative to their income is stopping expensive becoming insane.

    The rental market is a different matter. Increases in population above housing supply, people who cant afford to buy and look the rent in stead, and government policy to use the rental market to meet social housing requirements. All this means demand for rental is going through the roof. Government policy is to control rental inflation with price control. This doesn't solve the problem though, because it doesn't create more supply to meet all that demand.

    If you want to address rental costs in Dublin, build more property, and make eviction of non-paying tenants quicker and easier. Unfortunately, there is not one politician who will knock on your door, who agrees with that. All of them -FG/FF/Lab/SF/PBP/Greens/SD/Independents are of the mistaken belief that rent controls alone is how to deal with rent inflation. It doesn't matter who you vote for - nobody is suggesting what really needs to be done.

    the left spend an inordinate amount of time being concerned that others are making money , in this case landlords , therefore the goal of all these new regulations is primarily to hurt landlord rather than help tenants.

    the media is entirely left wing in this country and have a major hard on for landlords , FF and FG want to be on side with the media so while knowing damn well that the policies introduced this past five years are doing more harm than good , give in to left wing politicians , media and activists in order to have peace , weak cowardly politicians are the cause of the mess.

    personally id settle for a 5% return on property if rogue tenants were dealt with properly


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Dav010 wrote: »
    So you are saying the tenants are actually setting the market rent? For many, there are no other available options, so the rental price set by the market is what they have to pay, not what they choose to pay, where have you been for the last 5 years?

    If the small, amateur investors, as you call them, leave the market, that will leave a couple of investment funds as the majority landlords, I wouldn't say we are a whole world removed from that right now, in fact, I suspect those large investors are the main source of new rentals coming onto the Dublin market.

    Investment companies require profits small time investors may settle for rent covering a mortgage and are more likely to have some personal contact with a tenant. A Reit on the other hand which buys whole new complexes will be able to set rents at the highest level as they are new to the market, and their business model is based on maximising yield by increasing rents to the highest amount at defined intervals allowed by the RTA. Expecting a REIT to give you a lower rate, because they are more efficient is naive.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cairn-sells-229-homes-to-landlord-for-78m-1.4135996?mode=amp

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/us-investor-has-2bn-to-spend-on-irish-construction-1.3995574

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/german-fund-patrizia-acquires-52-5m-docklands-development-1.3991919

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/institutional-investors-villains-or-heroes-of-housing-woes-1.3950625

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/urbeo-in-pole-position-for-282-apartments-at-cairn-s-citywest-scheme-1.3922333

    Comparing a vulture/investment fund to a manufacturing company is beyond comprehension. A property investment company requires limited staff to oversee their properties, many of the staff can be based in London or the US, manufacturers/IT employ large numbers of staff, I assume you are referring to Intel or Google etc who employ thousands?


    Beyond your comprehension maybe. Tell me how one Euro sent back by Google to HQ is distinguished from one Euro sent back by a property fund.

    Are you going to rabbit on about what is done to make that Euro? That is not my point. A Euro is a Euro is a Euro. Both will leave the country. Same as a Euro you will spend on your weekend away to Paris.

    I didn't bother looking at your links dude. If you think that a fragmented system of amateur landlords just wanting a free pension because they filled out some forms at a Bank back in the day, will result in cheaper living then you are deluded. As you say yourself, the amateur landlord wants their mortgage covered. The professional landlord needs their cost of capital covered. Those are not the same thing.

    Why should some greedy gobshite who doesn't even understand the business get their mortgage "covered" by a renter? That is part of the problem. They want a free house to convert into a lump sum at the end. The professional investor just needs to have enough value in the house to pay off the remaining loan at the end. It is the renter who is paying the difference.


    And yes, the rents are set by the renters. That is 101 supply and demand. Following your logic, sure a REIT could buy up a block of apartments in Dublin city centre and charge rent of a billion euros a year and the renters would *have* to pay them :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭ Hugh Attractive Signboard


    Why should there be an incentive for speculative amateur landlords.

    Do you think that you should be somehow given a risk-free guaranteed return to own an asset in 30 years which will be paid back by some tenant? There are too many people out there thinking that they should be entitled to go into the bank, spend a few hours filling out a few forms, buy a house, forget about it for 30 years and then come back to sell it and keep the proceeds after some gobshite paid off their mortgage for them.

    Become a landlord by all means if you have the skills, time, effort and risk management ability to make it work.


    I'll agree that tenant have too many protections - in the case of those that won't pay or overhold or damage the property. But those are the rules of the game. If you can't manage by those rules in worst case scenario, then put your money elsewhere

    Who said anything about risk free?

    Landlords who bought apartments in Clongriffin in 2007 for €350,000 are about €100,000 in negative enquire right now, whilst paying at least half the mortgage.

    Why do tenants think they should be entitled to decent rental accommodation provided by private landlords?

    They should live within their means, out of the city, save up and get a mortgage like those before us.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭ Hugh Attractive Signboard


    I’m surprised there isn’t more landlords in Dublin since everyone here seems to think it’s a great gig altogether.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Who said anything about risk free?

    Landlords who bought apartments in Clongriffin in 2007 for €350,000 are about €100,000 in negative enquire right now, whilst paying at least half the mortgage.

    Why do tenants think they should be entitled to decent rental accommodation provided by private landlords?

    They should live within their means, out of the city, save up and get a mortgage like those before us.


    Well, you see, plenty of greedy entitled amateurs pushed up demand which pushed up prices which meant those renters couldn't afford, or wisely chose not to, buy those clongriffin places. Why should they cover the mistakes of the eejits who got money thrown at them by stupid bank managers?

    I'm not sure if yours is a serious post. You want the tenants to move out of houses and move to somewhere more affordable for them. I'd be for that too. It would bring rents down. It won't help the eejits with multiple apartments in Clongriffin but sure that's their loss.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    I’m surprised there isn’t more landlords in Dublin since everyone here seems to think it’s a great gig altogether.


    Who said it's a great gig? There are plenty on crying that it should be a great gig i.e. that they should be allowed to gazump on a house or apartment and then have the rival bidder rent it from them and pay for their mortgage.

    Why not just have what is effectively the equivalent rule? That if you see a house that you think will be nice for your pension in 30 years, that you can let Jimmy buy it and pay the mortgage and then in 30 years you are allowed to take it from him and sell it. It's the same attitude. In both scenarios it is the Bank's money you are buying it with. In both scenarios Jimmy will pay the mortgage. And in both scenarios you can sell it in 30 years and keep the money.


  • Posts: 4,727 ✭✭✭ Gustavo Plump Paperwork


    Jobs need to be moved away from Dublin City Centre. It has to happen!

    While property is a big issue, traffic congestion is even worse.

    I moved to Navan. Most of my commute home is queuing to get out of Dublin. Took me an hour today to get from Santry to Blanch. It’s 2 stops on the motorway like, ridiculous.
    Only 20 mins then back to Navan.

    Creating jobs elsewhere will help with both property and traffic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,811 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Who said it's a great gig? There are plenty on crying that it should be a great gig i.e. that they should be allowed to gazump on a house or apartment and then have the rival bidder rent it from them and pay for their mortgage.

    Why not just have what is effectively the equivalent rule? That if you see a house that you think will be nice for your pension in 30 years, that you can let Jimmy buy it and pay the mortgage and then in 30 years you are allowed to take it from him and sell it. It's the same attitude. In both scenarios it is the Bank's money you are buying it with. In both scenarios Jimmy will pay the mortgage. And in both scenarios you can sell it in 30 years and keep the money.

    That's in no way a fair comparison.
    Hertz uses the bank's money to buy a fleet of cars. Renter's cash pays the banks. After X years Hertz is left with fully paid off cars + profit. How is this different?

    You also fail to mention the following:
    "Jimmy" has no obligation or investment in the house.
    Jimmy gets the use of the house immediately, for no cost other than a deposit and rent.

    House burns down? no loss, save his posessions that happen to be inside.
    Stuff breaks? Who cares? Landlord pays.
    House price crashes? Not a problem. Walk away.
    Want to move? Just leave.

    And of course in Ireland:
    Dont want to pay rent? That's fine.
    Decide to pull the copper out of the walls? Go for it!
    Decide to sublet to a group of lads who wreck the place? No problem.

    Buy to let is an investment. If people arent allowed to rent and make an eventual profit then your argument is an argument against renting ANYTHING.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,502 ✭✭✭ Hugh Attractive Signboard


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    That's in no way a fair comparison.

    "Jimmy" has no obligation or investment in the house.
    Jimmy gets the use of the house immediately, for no cost other than a deposit and rent.

    House burns down? no loss, save his posessions that happen to be inside.
    Stuff breaks? Who cares? Landlord pays.
    House price crashes? Not a problem. Walk away.
    Want to move? Just leave.

    And of course in Ireland:
    Dont want to pay rent? That's fine.
    Decide to pull the copper out of the walls? Go for it!
    Decide to sublet to a group of lads who wreck the place? No problem.

    Buy to let is an investment. If people arent allowed to rent and make an eventual profit then your argument is an argument against renting ANYTHING.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,385 ✭✭✭lainey_d_123


    Jobs need to be moved away from Dublin City Centre. It has to happen!

    While property is a big issue, traffic congestion is even worse.

    I moved to Navan. Most of my commute home is queuing to get out of Dublin. Took me an hour today to get from Santry to Blanch. It’s 2 stops on the motorway like, ridiculous.
    Only 20 mins then back to Navan.

    Creating jobs elsewhere will help with both property and traffic.

    Or even changing the work culture to allow more remote working. Most office workers don't need to be in the office. At a time when almost everyone has access to fast broadband and can dial into meetings, it's obscene that people are making ridiculous commutes to get to an office in Dublin when they live miles away. I don't know what job you personally do but imagine if you were able to work from home and only go to the office once a month or once a fortnight...all that time saved, money saved, pollution saved, and less pressure on the Dublin rental market.

    Employers in Ireland need to get with the times and be more open to flexible work patterns and working from home.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    That's in no way a fair comparison.
    Hertz uses the bank's money to buy a fleet of cars. Renter's cash pays the banks. After X years Hertz is left with fully paid off cars + profit. How is this different?

    You also fail to mention the following:
    "Jimmy" has no obligation or investment in the house.
    Jimmy gets the use of the house immediately, for no cost other than a deposit and rent.

    House burns down? no loss, save his posessions that happen to be inside.
    Stuff breaks? Who cares? Landlord pays.
    House price crashes? Not a problem. Walk away.
    Want to move? Just leave.

    And of course in Ireland:
    Dont want to pay rent? That's fine.
    Decide to pull the copper out of the walls? Go for it!
    Decide to sublet to a group of lads who wreck the place? No problem.

    Buy to let is an investment. If people arent allowed to rent and make an eventual profit then your argument is an argument against renting ANYTHING.

    If Hertz uses 1million of the banks money to buy a fleet of cars, rents them for 10 years, pays off the loan, do you think that when they go to sell them in 10 years that they'll also have the 1million money back?

    Your Hertz example is actually closer to what I explained for the professional investor who will try to target that at the end, that the value of the asset will cover any outstanding debts. The amateur, as was indicated above by another poster, requires that the tenant covers the mortgage so that the "owner" gets a free house in 30 years.

    As for insurance, do you think that landlords insure tenants possessions? Do you not realise that most property owners will insure their property?

    The other stuff is precisely the reason why it should be professional landlords.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,811 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Lol dude.

    If Hertz uses 1million of the banks money to buy a fleet of cars, rents them for 10 years, pays off the loan, do you think that when they go to sell them in 10 years that they'll also have the 1million money back? Actually, maybe you do think that :pac:
    If Hertz didn't make their money, they wouldn't be around. The cars are worth almost nothing after a few years, but the rental cost is more than enough to cover depreciation and turn profit. Obviously.
    As for insurance, do you think that landlords insure tenants possessions? Do you not realise that most property owners will insure their property
    Landlords don't insure tenants posessions, or at leasst have the most basic contents protection. No landlord has gone room to room, totted up the value of what I have and increased their coverage.
    Yes a landlord will have house insurance, but the tenant doesn't give a f*ck, they can just move on.


    My point stands. There are many luxuries to renting. I've never had to fork out to fix a boiler in my rented house. Never had to paint a room. Never had to change flooring, or a kitchen. Never bought an appliance or a matress.

    I moved into a brand new build and all I paid was a few thousand. I won't need the hassle of selling, never have to pay estate agent. LPT doesn't concern me. If a pipe bursts and the foundations are f*cked, I don't care.

    I pay my rent. Some people say it's dead money. I say that it's perfect for me right now. I'll buy a house when I see one I like and assume all the responsibility that comes with it. For now though, I have a worry free life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    If Hertz didn't make their money, they wouldn't be around. The cars are worth almost nothing after a few years, but the rental cost is more than enough to cover depreciation and turn profit. Obviously.


    Landlords don't insure tenants posessions, or at leasst have the most basic contents protection. No landlord has gone room to room, totted up the value of what I have and increased their coverage.
    Yes a landlord will have house insurance, but the tenant doesn't give a f*ck, they can just move on.


    My point stands. There are many luxuries to renting. I've never had to fork out to fix a boiler in my rented house. Never had to paint a room. Never had to change flooring, or a kitchen. Never bought an appliance or a matress.

    I moved into a brand new build and all I paid was a few thousand. I won't need the hassle of selling, never have to pay estate agent. LPT doesn't concern me. If a pipe bursts and the foundations are f*cked, I don't care.

    I pay my rent. Some people say it's dead money. I say that it's perfect for me right now. I'll buy a house when I see one I like and assume all the responsibility that comes with it. For now though, I have a worry free life.


    I still don't understand you point.

    If I rent a house I insure the contents.

    If I buy a house, I insure the contents and the building. I probably have to as part of the mortgage requirements. Are you saying that the landlord deserves to own the property because he paid for the buildings insurance???

    You're renting because it suits you. But then do you not see the folly in a lot of amateur landlords who think that they should be entitled to have a renter or renters pay their mortgage for them? By all means let them invest in what they want. But I think that the conventional general recommendation is not to have more than 10% in property. It's the same thing as putting all your money on Facebook shares. You can do it if you want but don't expect any sympathy if they tank in 10 years just because everyone else was doing it and prices were going up. You have the additional complication that the house brings added headache that the "investor" might not be able to deal with efficiently.


    If people are investing and putting up all the capital or perhaps buying equity in a vehicle that will put the money up to develop a property then that has some value to society. But if they are getting a high LTV mortgage from the Bank and just outbidding the local family by 5k on an already built house or apartment then that adds very little.


  • Registered Users Posts: 216 ✭✭AngeloArgue


    Shelga wrote: »
    Why is the cost of property, esp renting, so high in Dublin?

    Demand driven by FDI and immigration


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭sasta le


    Lack of building,high welfare rents paid,1000s of foreigners moving here




  • Well, you see, plenty of greedy entitled amateurs pushed up demand which pushed up prices which meant those renters couldn't afford, or wisely chose not to, buy those clongriffin places. Why should they cover the mistakes of the eejits who got money thrown at them by stupid bank managers?

    I'm not sure if yours is a serious post. You want the tenants to move out of houses and move to somewhere more affordable for them. I'd be for that too. It would bring rents down. It won't help the eejits with multiple apartments in Clongriffin but sure that's their loss.

    You're talking in circles here. Those renters chose not buy those places, wisely, you say? Yet they've spent how much in rent since then? How many people were in a position to buy in 2007, chose not to, and regret it today, would you say? Even as a percentage? I reckon its 95%+.

    Also, your last line really shows your true colours. Landlords who are struggling to make payments on their property due to low rents = their loss. Tenants struggling to find a place abd/or pay the rent = somebody please help! Why is it OK for you to say 'their loss' but not OK for others to say it to those renting today?

    People bought like mad in the early noughties, rightly or wrongly. The crash happened, and there was a wave of smug complacency from those who hadn't bought anything. Rents fell like lead and the consensus was "tough, should've thought of that earlier."

    Now the market has swung the other way due to lack of supply and the smugness has disappeared, mostly. Instead it's "people can't buy cos they're stuck paying higher rents."

    Well, should've thought of that earlier.

    I know for a fact that a bigger 2 bed in that Santry development linked earlier was available for €750 per month in 2009. That same apartment is rented out for €1400 now, and the only reason it's not higher is because the LL did the 2010 tenants a favour for sticking with him through the bad times and kept rent well below market rate. They moved out 3 months after the RPZ legislation came in because they'd saved a deposit. The LL has increased it by the max every available opportunity since then and he's still 6000 per year worse off than if he'd been a bad guy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,841 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    You're talking in circles here. Those renters chose not buy those places, wisely, you say? Yet they've spent how much in rent since then? How many people were in a position to buy in 2007, chose not to, and regret it today, would you say? Even as a percentage? I reckon its 95%+.

    Also, your last line really shows your true colours. Landlords who are struggling to make payments on their property due to low rents = their loss. Tenants struggling to find a place abd/or pay the rent = somebody please help! Why is it OK for you to say 'their loss' but not OK for others to say it to those renting today?

    People bought like mad in the early noughties, rightly or wrongly. The crash happened, and there was a wave of smug complacency from those who hadn't bought anything. Rents fell like lead and the consensus was "tough, should've thought of that earlier."

    Now the market has swung the other way due to lack of supply and the smugness has disappeared, mostly. Instead it's "people can't buy cos they're stuck paying higher rents."

    Well, should've thought of that earlier.

    I know for a fact that a bigger 2 bed in that Santry development linked earlier was available for €750 per month in 2009. That same apartment is rented out for €1400 now, and the only reason it's not higher is because the LL did the 2010 tenants a favour for sticking with him through the bad times and kept rent well below market rate. They moved out 3 months after the RPZ legislation came in because they'd saved a deposit. The LL has increased it by the max every available opportunity since then and he's still 6000 per year worse off than if he'd been a bad guy.


    What are you trying to say? You wrote a lot of words but actually made no point. It's all over the shop.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,811 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    What are you trying to say? You wrote a lot of words but actually made no point. It's all over the shop.

    He's saying that people can't have a functional rental sector while vilifying the people who provide it.

    The government needs landlords to provide rental accommodation and it had plenty up until recent times.

    The government wins votes by f*cking over landlords at every opportunity because Irish people have a weird cultural thing about owning property, see renting as "dead money", while also seeing their rented house as a home.

    Landlords sell, supply goes down, rents go up, housing crisis is exacerbated. The government puts rental caps. Landlords leave, rent goes up The government introduces HAP. Rent goes up.

    The government reaps what they sow.


  • Advertisement


  • What are you trying to say? You wrote a lot of words but actually made no point. It's all over the shop.

    Reading comprehension not your strong point, no? As well as the points put forward by the other poster above, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your average Irish person.

    People were delighted they had the foresight to not jump on the property ladder. Homeowners were openly mocked on boards for being stupid enough to buy a gaff. Now, it turns out that buying at that time was a worthwhile investment and the naysayers are blaming the homeowners for being heartless greedy bastards.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement