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

Anti Eviction Bill

2456

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,123 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    GGTrek wrote: »
    This is what the hard left and SF want, they do not want landlords, full stop. Thank god I am selling everything.

    I get that feeling too.

    The thing is where are people meant to rent if there's nowhere to rent?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭1874


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I get that feeling too.

    The thing is where are people meant to rent if there's nowhere to rent?
    Well it looks like they are trying to prevent people from selling or penalising if they want to/need to get out, so forced rental and all the penalty that goes with it. I guess if/when people start selling they believe there will be less demand for rentals, but this wont create extra space and I think could result in more demand and less availability as the people that can take up housing through buying, will probably be utilise it in lower persons/unit manner. The likes of Eoghan Murphy will only figure this out after its a disaster and will at that point be long gone and wont give a damn.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Imo if the parties following neoliberalism economics voted against or abstained it's a good bill.

    Now this could be the impetus for the accidental landlords to find a way out of the mess they find themselves in by the state purchasing their properties and thus creating public housing at the stroke of a pen.

    It could also cause landlords to be a bit more professional about things. Renting can still generate profit but it would make it a more long term contract for both tenant and landlord


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    P_1 wrote: »
    Imo if the parties following neoliberalism economics voted against or abstained it's a good bill.

    Now this could be the impetus for the accidental landlords to find a way out of the mess they find themselves in by the state purchasing their properties and thus creating public housing at the stroke of a pen.

    It could also cause landlords to be a bit more professional about things. Renting can still generate profit but it would make it a more long term contract for both tenant and landlord

    You haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. The “bill” is left wing ideological bollox.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ginger83 wrote: »
    3 words......will never happen.

    I’ve skipped the all the posts so my question may have been answered.

    My tenants Part 4 comes to an end in April and I won’t be extending it. Im getting out of letting completely.

    If these crazy ideas do get enacted, would I be obliged to follow them or would I be ok to continue with my plan?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    garhjw wrote: »
    You haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. The “bill” is left wing ideological bollox.

    Delightful dismissal there.

    It will get to committee stage and ideas will be hashed out.

    What exactly is so wrong about the state buying people out of mortgages. Owning a property, paying a mortgage on it and having to deal with the hassle of being a landlord on top of having to work is likely a massive pain in the nether regions for a lot of people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    I’ve skipped the all the posts so my question may have been answered.

    My tenants Part 4 comes to an end in April and I won’t be extending it. Im getting out of letting completely.

    If these crazy ideas do get enacted, would I be obliged to follow them or would I be ok to continue with my plan?

    I guess you could sell with the tenants in situ if it comes into effect. Though tbh I highly doubt anything will be enacted by April so you would be fine to continue with your plan


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    P_1 wrote:
    What exactly is so wrong about the state buying people out of mortgages. Owning a property, paying a mortgage on it and having to deal with the hassle of being a landlord on top of having to work is likely a massive pain in the nether regions for a lot of people.


    The state certainly needs to increase its stock of public housing, but its hard to know if these approaches will work, or simply makes things worse, what a mess


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,502 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    P_1 wrote: »
    Delightful dismissal there.

    It will get to committee stage and ideas will be hashed out.

    What exactly is so wrong about the state buying people out of mortgages. Owning a property, paying a mortgage on it and having to deal with the hassle of being a landlord on top of having to work is likely a massive pain in the nether regions for a lot of people.

    It's none of the states business, if the state wants houses it can build them.

    We need a rental market available so ordinary people can easily go and rent a room or a house either short or long term.

    It doesn't need the state involved, I'd rather deal direct with a straight talking landlord than spend months dealing with uncaring civil servants when I'm renting a place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    It doesn't need the state involved, I'd rather deal direct with a straight talking landlord than spend months dealing with uncaring civil servants when I'm renting a place.


    Disturbingly, we re at a point in this game, that neither state nor the market can actually provide this critical need


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    It's none of the states business, if the state wants houses it can build them.

    We need a rental market available so ordinary people can easily go and rent a room or a house either short or long term.

    It doesn't need the state involved, I'd rather deal direct with a straight talking landlord than spend months dealing with uncaring civil servants when I'm renting a place.

    Well obviously it wouldn't be compulsory to sell up but it should be there as an option for people who bought in the boom but now want a way out


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,502 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Disturbingly, we re at a point in this game, that neither state nor the market can actually provide this critical need

    Of course they can if the right policies are put in place.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,651 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    I'm not sure this won't get enacted. Even if it doesn't I wonder how many will get out just in case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Of course they can if the right policies are put in place.


    True, but I don't see that happening for a very long time, this one will get very scary for all involved


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    I’ve skipped the all the posts so my question may have been answered.

    My tenants Part 4 comes to an end in April and I won’t be extending it. Im getting out of letting completely.

    If these crazy ideas do get enacted, would I be obliged to follow them or would I be ok to continue with my plan?


    I did answer it in an indirect way in my post. This is not law and it will probably not see the light of day unless SF and the commies win an election (which I doubt very much since the vast majority of people in Ireland are property owners and/or own assets).


    In any case if you have already served to your tenants a section 34(b) notice (that this bill proposes to eliminate making tenancies for life at the choice of the tenant) then you are fine. This is the notice I am talking about, if you have not served it, you should be serving it as soon as possible (in any case before April): https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences.docx


    Laws cannot be retroactive and your notice will be considered valid even if this nefarious bill is approved in the future.


    Unfortunately the first answer to your post came from a comrade which is polluting this thread with his nonsense. He should take an economic 101 course to understand the practical effects of such bill, which is exactly what you are doing: evicting tenants before bill is approved and getting out of the letting market and in turn reducing supply. If this bill gets out of committee stage the rental market in Ireland will be shaken to the bones in a very negative way: supply will collapse and evictions will skyrocket to a level never seen before.


    I suggest the comrade to instead read some thoughts of a lefty (but not commie) Nobel prize economist on such measures like rent control combined with some of the stuff put in this bill and stop the BS learned directly from the party line: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html The comrade is just part of the people that Krugman calls "people literally don't want to know"


  • Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭mikep


    I guess the Coppinger. Barry, Murphy and their crew probably know that this will fail but it gives them loads of opportunities to beat their loonie left drum in public, castigating the government for not implementing this bill so getting Joe Public riled up which is their aim..

    Wind people up with nonsense and sit back and enjoy the ride while not contributing a thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭Garibaldi?


    I hope this development does not result in decent and responsible tenants being served with notices by anxious landlords. Most human beings are well-intentioned. When all is said and done all this property will be there when landlord and tenant are pushing up daisies!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    mikep wrote: »
    I guess the Coppinger. Barry, Murphy and their crew probably know that this will fail but it gives them loads of opportunities to beat their loonie left drum in public, castigating the government for not implementing this bill so getting Joe Public riled up which is their aim..

    Wind people up with nonsense and sit back and enjoy the ride while not contributing a thing.

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. The commies will publicly attack anyone that opposes the bill. Another excuse for a protest march by people with nothing better to do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    mikep wrote: »
    I guess the Coppinger. Barry, Murphy and their crew probably know that this will fail but it gives them loads of opportunities to beat their loonie left drum in public, castigating the government for not implementing this bill so getting Joe Public riled up which is their aim..

    Wind people up with nonsense and sit back and enjoy the ride while not contributing a thing.

    I would suspect a version of it may be enacted. I would also suspect a number of landlords will not take the risk and will serve notice so they do not get caught out. Another good example of overregulation actively hurting people but looking great as a headline.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    GGTrek wrote: »
    I did answer it in an indirect way in my post. This is not law and it will probably not see the light of day unless SF and the commies win an election (which I doubt very much since the vast majority of people in Ireland are property owners and/or own assets).


    In any case if you have already served to your tenants a section 34(b) notice (that this bill proposes to eliminate making tenancies for life at the choice of the tenant) then you are fine. This is the notice I am talking about, if you have not served it, you should be serving it as soon as possible (in any case before April): https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Disputes/Sample%20Notice%20of%20Termination%20-%20terminating-before-a-further-part-4-commences.docx


    Laws cannot be retroactive and your notice will be considered valid even if this nefarious bill is approved in the future.


    Unfortunately the first answer to your post came from a comrade which is polluting this thread with his nonsense. He should take an economic 101 course to understand the practical effects of such bill, which is exactly what you are doing: evicting tenants before bill is approved and getting out of the letting market and in turn reducing supply. If this bill gets out of committee stage the rental market in Ireland will be shaken to the bones in a very negative way: supply will collapse and evictions will skyrocket to a level never seen before.


    I suggest the comrade to instead read some thoughts of a lefty (but not commie) Nobel prize economist on such measures like rent control combined with some of the stuff put in this bill and stop the BS learned directly from the party line: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html The comrade is just part of the people that Krugman calls "people literally don't want to know"

    I presume that commie nonsense rhetoric that helps nobody was directed at me.

    Apologies for the delay replying, was working (something you should try some day)

    Rather than spout ideological ire would it not be more productive to look to solutions to a very real problem. Over 4 decades now the state has blindly copied neoliberal policies that have led to a shortage of properties to rent in. Rather than smear politicians (who admittedly have an agenda) but are proposing bills that when brought to committee stage have the potential to identify solutions to this


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    P_1 wrote: »
    I presume that commie nonsense rhetoric that helps nobody was directed at me.

    Apologies for the delay replying, was working (something you should try some day)

    Rather than spout ideological ire would it not be more productive to look to solutions to a very real problem. Over 4 decades now the state has blindly copied neoliberal policies that have led to a shortage of properties to rent in. Rather than smear politicians (who admittedly have an agenda) but are proposing bills that when brought to committee stage have the potential to identify solutions to this

    What they are proposing isn't anywhere near a solution. They want to take away the rights of people that own property. In their narrow minds landlords are responsible for this and they want to punish them. That's all this is about. They do not have the intelligence or experience to propose a solution. The solution is increased supply in the market, giving tenants more choice and bringing rent levels to affordable levels. It also means landlords need to provide a good product and service. If they don't then tenants can move elsewhere.
    There was a recession so no houses or apartments were built for the best part of a decade. People waffle on about this neoliberal tripe as they think it makes them sound intelligent.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Garibaldi? wrote: »
    I hope this development does not result in decent and responsible tenants being served with notices by anxious landlords. Most human beings are well-intentioned. When all is said and done all this property will be there when landlord and tenant are pushing up daisies!

    I was getting out anyway. Tried being a landlord and found it isn’t for me. I’ve spent the majority of nearly 4 years chasing the rent and my head is fried. Just gonna have the house for when my daughters or other family members come home for holidays.

    I just want to be able to make the decisions on what I do with my own property.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    garhjw wrote: »
    What they are proposing isn't anywhere near a solution. They want to take away the rights of people that own property. In their narrow minds landlords are responsible for this and they want to punish them. That's all this is about. They do not have the intelligence or experience to propose a solution. The solution is increased supply in the market, giving tenants more choice and bringing rent levels to affordable levels. It also means landlords need to provide a good product and service. If they don't then tenants can move elsewhere.
    There was a recession so no houses or apartments were built for the best part of a decade. People waffle on about this neoliberal tripe as they think it makes them sound intelligent.

    Economic sense would suggest that a recession would have been the time to build. That along with WW2 is what dragged America out of the Great Depression. However neoliberalism dictated that the entire construction sector ground to a halt. Theres no sense in moaning about it now as we haven't invented the time machine but at the heart of it, that's why we're in this current mess.

    We're now faced with 2 options.

    1 Increase supply and reduce all costs associated with construction. A lot of vested interests who cream off the middle will scream bloody murder at that.

    2 Work with our current supply and increase the rights of tenants. Yes there are dodgy tenants and dodgy landlords out there but both are in the minority. Buying is now out of reach for a lot of people so it's in the interests of both for us to move to a continental style rental system with long leases being the norm rather than the exception.

    Unfortunately FF/FG seem to have little interest in either of those solutions so that just leads to us shouting at each other on t'internet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    P_1 wrote: »
    Economic sense would suggest that a recession would have been the time to build. That along with WW2 is what dragged America out of the Great Depression. However neoliberalism dictated that the entire construction sector ground to a halt. Theres no sense in moaning about it now as we haven't invented the time machine but at the heart of it, that's why we're in this current mess.

    We're now faced with 2 options.

    1 Increase supply and reduce all costs associated with construction. A lot of vested interests who cream off the middle will scream bloody murder at that.

    2 Work with our current supply and increase the rights of tenants. Yes there are dodgy tenants and dodgy landlords out there but both are in the minority. Buying is now out of reach for a lot of people so it's in the interests of both for us to move to a continental style rental system with long leases being the norm rather than the exception.

    Unfortunately FF/FG seem to have little interest in either of those solutions so that just leads to us shouting at each other on t'internet.

    Ah yes capital expenditure on houses when nobody has any money...... oh dear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    garhjw wrote: »
    Ah yes capital expenditure on houses when nobody has any money...... oh dear.

    Again focusing on what happened in the past which we cannot change. This is one of the many reasons I despise boujie capitalists


  • Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭mikep


    I think a totally holistic approach has to be taken to this to include protection to both tenants and landlords while bringing our system into a more normal mode where long tenancies are the norm and people can rent for their lifetime but the PBP brigade can't be seen to be helping landlords as that would go against their reason for existing.

    When you have the main "national housing charity" making up stories about landlords and apparently encouraging tenants to stay in properties in where they are not entitled to stay you can see how dysfunctional the system is..

    Bills like this will only prove to exacerbate this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    P_1 wrote: »
    Again focusing on what happened in the past which we cannot change. This is one of the many reasons I despise boujie capitalists

    You’re the 1 waffling in about ww2. Good luck to you


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Political arguments and name calling can go to the Politics forums - although some of it won't be acceptable there. This includes Unparliamentary Language use which has happened a lot on this and other threads


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    P_1 wrote: »
    Economic sense would suggest that a recession would have been the time to build. That along with WW2 is what dragged America out of the Great Depression. However neoliberalism dictated that the entire construction sector ground to a halt. Theres no sense in moaning about it now as we haven't invented the time machine but at the heart of it, that's why we're in this current mess.

    We're now faced with 2 options.

    1 Increase supply and reduce all costs associated with construction. A lot of vested interests who cream off the middle will scream bloody murder at that.

    2 Work with our current supply and increase the rights of tenants. Yes there are dodgy tenants and dodgy landlords out there but both are in the minority. Buying is now out of reach for a lot of people so it's in the interests of both for us to move to a continental style rental system with long leases being the norm rather than the exception.

    Unfortunately FF/FG seem to have little interest in either of those solutions so that just leads to us shouting at each other on t'internet.

    2. Going with option 2 will make more ll leave the market, and not stimpulate any more interest in btl. This will decrease supply And increase rent for all the people currently. This is what they have currently being gradually doing for years and all you see is price rise after price rise.

    The one and only option is to increase supply or in your one route no 1


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    P_1 wrote: »
    Economic sense would suggest that a recession would have been the time to build. That along with WW2 is what dragged America out of the Great Depression. However neoliberalism dictated that the entire construction sector ground to a halt. Theres no sense in moaning about it now as we haven't invented the time machine but at the heart of it, that's why we're in this current mess.

    We're now faced with 2 options.

    1 Increase supply and reduce all costs associated with construction. A lot of vested interests who cream off the middle will scream bloody murder at that.

    2 Work with our current supply and increase the rights of tenants. Yes there are dodgy tenants and dodgy landlords out there but both are in the minority. Buying is now out of reach for a lot of people so it's in the interests of both for us to move to a continental style rental system with long leases being the norm rather than the exception.

    Unfortunately FF/FG seem to have little interest in either of those solutions so that just leads to us shouting at each other on t'internet.

    Option 2 will not work as we as a society don't have the same approach to continental Europe. It always amazes me when for example the German model is used as a comparison.

    German culture is completely different to Irish culture. You cant just expect to introduce a model from continental Europe and expect it to work. People in Germany would be ashamed not to pay their rent. In Ireland its seen as a badge of honour as "getting one up on the greedy landlord" (that same landlord who is just like you and me, an ordinary Joe Soap trying to survive.

    We have this notion that you can stop paying rent and there is no consequence. It can take over a year to evict a non paying tenant. If you want landlords to stay in the market long term you sign leases that are legally binding on both parties. This means fast evictions for non payment of rent. If you sign a lease then the lease stands and is not overruled by changing law.

    If you want landlords to stay then let them decide if they want a long term lease now or not. If they want long term lease then offer incentives (which can't be changed by the Govt).

    Some landlords entered the market as a short term investment to allow their children move into the rental property. With the proposed legislation a landlord will have to "buy themselves out of a tenancy", if this is the case then the same should hold true for the tenant.


Advertisement