Are we really back to this sh*t again?

kylith · 17-02-2017 12:25pm

lawred2 wrote: »

sure but instead of a property being occupied by a tenant it's now occupied by an owner

So you've lost one property which would have been added to the rental market.. In effect doing nothing to help the rental situation.

Not really, because the house which the buyers had been renting is now available again for new renters. A space actually frees up in the rental market.

lawred2 · 17-02-2017 12:28pm

kylith wrote: »

Not really, because the house which the buyers had been renting is now available again for new renters. A space actually frees up in the rental market.

but you'll eventually end up with a static or decreasing rental stock were you to block investors from purchasing new properties..

It's a borrow from Peter to pay Paul solution

The solution is building not regulating investors out of the market.

xckjoo · 17-02-2017 12:34pm

lawred2 wrote: »

but you'll eventually end up with a static or decreasing rental stock were you to block investors from purchasing new properties..

It's a borrow from Peter to pay Paul solution

The solution is building not regulating investors out of the market.

There'll always be some amount of new rental properties becoming available. You just don't want it exceeding the amount of buy-to-live properties or you're forcing an increase in the amount of people that have to rent (supply leading demand situation).

We tried unregulated building. Didn't go too well and left us where we are now. Should we keep trying the same thing and hoping it goes better this time? I'm not saying regulated them out of the market, but the market should prioritise people that want to buy-to-live.

lawred2 · 17-02-2017 12:40pm

xckjoo wrote: »

There'll always be some amount of new rental properties becoming available. You just don't want it exceeding the amount of buy-to-live properties or you're forcing an increase in the amount of people that have to rent (supply leading demand situation).

We tried unregulated building. Didn't go too well and left us where we are now. Should we keep trying the same thing and hoping it goes better this time? I'm not saying regulated them out of the market, but the market should prioritise people that want to buy-to-live.

Did I say that? Or anything close to that?

It's not a case of prioritizing any one group over another. It's about building the right types of houses in the right places to solve the right needs.

For instance, apartments in the IFSC will mostly be sought after by professionals who want to rent. Houses in Malahide will be sought after by people who want to live.

You wouldn't get far prioritizing owner occupiers in city centre apartments. Well you might actually but you can be sure that they'll all end up as 'investors' when they move on and become landlords themselves.

xckjoo · 17-02-2017 12:58pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Did I say that? Or anything close to that?

Yes. Very close.

The solution is building not regulating investors out of the market.

It's not a case of prioritizing any one group over another. It's about building the right types of houses in the right places to solve the right needs.

For instance, apartments in the IFSC will mostly be sought after by professionals who want to rent. Houses in Malahide will be sought after by people who want to live.

You wouldn't get far prioritizing owner occupiers in city centre apartments. Well you might actually but you can be sure that they'll all end up as 'investors' when they move on and become landlords themselves.

It is a case of prioritizing one group over another. That's what's currently happening because potential home owners can't afford to compete with investment buyers. You might be right about the IFSC and Malahide specific examples (although I'd say you're speculating somewhat), but can you generalise that across the country?

lawred2 · 17-02-2017 1:06pm

xckjoo wrote: »

Yes. Very close.

No I didn't. Or anything close.

xckjoo wrote: »

It is a case of prioritizing one group over another. That's what's currently happening because potential home owners can't afford to compete with investment buyers. You might be right about the IFSC and Malahide specific examples (although I'd say you're speculating somewhat), but can you generalise that across the country?

In the estate that I bought in - 38 homes out of 38 were sold to owner occupiers. Not one property was purchased for the rental market. This is in North County Dublin.

Can you generalise across the country about home buyers being muscled out of the market?

xckjoo · 17-02-2017 1:18pm

lawred2 wrote: »

No I didn't. Or anything close.

In the estate that I bought in - 38 homes out of 38 were sold to owner occupiers. Not one property was purchased for the rental market. This is in North County Dublin.

Can you generalise across the country about home buyers being muscled out of the market?

I'm saying it's one of the many factors that can't be ignored. I haven't once said it's the main factor. I can give you some anecdotal stories about my own neighbourhood but that's as useful as your own example for inferring generalization.

You could look at the likes of Ires Reit as a worrying sign about how things are/could be heading.

sbsquarepants · 17-02-2017 2:43pm

xckjoo wrote: »

If we could take those people (the ones that want to buy and aren't going to default on a reasonable mortgage) out of the rental cycle, then that frees up plenty of existing rental properties.

xckjoo wrote: »

No you've taken one renter out of the market and vacated a rental property so you've a gain of one rental property. If you just add another rental property you have no change.

Surely you can see that it only frees up a rental property, if you add another house. It's simple supply and demand - if you don't either increase the number of houses, or decrease the number of people all you do is change rented property into an owner occupied property. Which doesn't make whole lot of difference!

xckjoo · 17-02-2017 3:28pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Surely you can see that it only frees up a rental property, if you add another house. It's simple supply and demand - if you don't either increase the number of houses, or decrease the number of people all you do is change rented property into an owner occupied property. Which doesn't make whole lot of difference!

I know what you mean but it's not that simple a case. For the majority of people the flow goes Living at Home with Parents -> Renting -> Home Ownership. There's some variation but most people would follow that progression and people would rarely go back from Home Ownership -> Renting. By increasing the supply of rental properties you're decreasing the supply of ownership properties as that's what they'd be used for otherwise. Since that then prevents someone from moving from being a "renter" to "owner", and since there's always more people going from living at home to renting, you're creating a bottleneck. The number of homeowners on the other hand isn't increasing, there's just more homes owned by existing homeowners.

Obviously real life isn't that simple. Things are muddied somewhat by things like builders not finding building new properties profitable without the investor money increasing the prices, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore that bottleneck. Again, it's not a simple issue. Lots of factors to consider other than just building more.

sbsquarepants · 21-02-2017 2:54pm

xckjoo wrote: »

I know what you mean but it's not that simple a case. For the majority of people the flow goes Living at Home with Parents -> Renting -> Home Ownership. There's some variation but most people would follow that progression and people would rarely go back from Home Ownership -> Renting. By increasing the supply of rental properties you're decreasing the supply of ownership properties as that's what they'd be used for otherwise. Since that then prevents someone from moving from being a "renter" to "owner", and since there's always more people going from living at home to renting, you're creating a bottleneck. The number of homeowners on the other hand isn't increasing, there's just more homes owned by existing homeowners.

Obviously real life isn't that simple. Things are muddied somewhat by things like builders not finding building new properties profitable without the investor money increasing the prices, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore that bottleneck. Again, it's not a simple issue. Lots of factors to consider other than just building more.

You seem to be assuming that people buy houses and then live happily in them forever, people move, emigrate, trade up, trade down.
There is small matter of death to be considered!:eek:
There isn't just an ever increasing amount of renters waiting in rentalville eager to make the leap to buy, but all the houses have been irrevocably trapped as buy to rent houses.
Also you don't create rental properties, you merely create properties which people buy - sometimes to live in, sometimes to rent out, sometimes to do both.

NIMAN · 21-02-2017 2:58pm

What we need is a scheme to incentivise older couples, maybe with kids all gone from home, to move from their 4 and 5 bed houses into smaller apartments centrally located.

I know if I was older I'd prefer to be central to everything, have a smaller place easier to run and heat etc.

sbsquarepants · 22-02-2017 11:10am

Why would you need to be incentivised to do what you'd want anyway?

If older people wanted to give up their houses and buy something smaller and more central there is nothing stopping them. They don't do it because they don't want to, and I have to say I can understand why - and it is their house at the end of the day, they paid for it and they are fully entitled to it.

Wanderer78 · 22-02-2017 11:17am

sbsquarepants wrote:

If older people wanted to give up their houses and buy something smaller and more central there is nothing stopping them. They don't do it because they don't want to, and I have to say I can understand why - and it is their house at the end of the day, they paid for it and they are fully entitled to it.

It's also their home, whereby many have raised their kids, creating many happy memories etc. It's not that simple moving on from the family home

sbsquarepants · 22-02-2017 12:21pm

Exactly, it's hardly fairly to expect people who have jumped through all the hoops required to get and pay for a house to then clear off and make way for someone else once the hard part is done!

lawred2 · 22-02-2017 12:29pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Exactly, it's hardly fairly to expect people who have jumped through all the hoops required to get and pay for a house to then clear off and make way for someone else once the hard part is done!

what?

sbsquarepants · 22-02-2017 12:35pm

lawred2 wrote: »

what?

Sorry, should say hardly fair!

Niman, suggested incentivising older people to move out of their homes to make way for young couples.
I think a lot, probably the majority of older people wouldn't like this very much and having done the hard part - ie paid for it, they should feel fully entitled to live in it until the grim reaper decides otherwise.

lawred2 · 22-02-2017 12:38pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry, should say hardly fair!

Niman, suggested incentivising older people to move out of their homes to make way for young couples.
I think a lot, probably the majority of older people wouldn't like this very much and having done the hard part - ie paid for it, they should feel fully entitled to live in it until the grim reaper decides otherwise.

I knew what you meant.. I didn't even notice the typo.

Nobody suggested dispossessing anyone of their homes. Just incentivise those who may be on the fence about downsizing. If they want to stay in their 4/5 bed suburban homes then all power to them.

Downsizing isn't a bad thing. And it results in good use of housing stock.

sbsquarepants · 22-02-2017 1:19pm

lawred2 wrote: »

I knew what you meant.. I didn't even notice the typo.

Nobody suggested dispossessing anyone of their homes. Just incentivise those who may be on the fence about downsizing. If they want to stay in their 4/5 bed suburban homes then all power to them.

Downsizing isn't a bad thing. And it results in good use of housing stock.

I know nobody mentioned dispossessing anyone, but there is a kind of creeping suggestion in the media that family houses are kind of wasted on older people and could be put to better use. Not by Niman in his post mind - just in general.
Downsizing isn't a bad thing if it's what people want, and if it's what people want then there's nothing stopping them as it is. It is a bad thing if younger people are begrudging older people the fruits of their labour.

I've also a suspicion that all incentivising would really achieve is a higher sale price for those who where going to do it anyway.
There's practically always money to be made by downsizing as it is, the reason people tend not to do it, is because they value the house, area, friends, neighbours etc more than the money.

NIMAN · 22-02-2017 1:44pm

I fully understand older folk not wanting to move out of their big houses, I have family the same now, an elderly mother, widow, living in a sprawling 4 bed house far too big for her.

I of course understand she has memories of it, with my father and raising us all as kids. In fact I too would be sad to see it sold. I'm not saying people should move on, but I am saying that if we have a problem then is it not the Gov's job to try to entice these people out? Make it pay for them in some form or other?

When I mention to my mother than perhaps she should downsize, I know she doesn't want to now. But if it was a very good deal to do it, she might look on it more favourably.

sbsquarepants · 22-02-2017 2:27pm

NIMAN wrote: »

but I am saying that if we have a problem then is it not the Gov's job to try to entice these people out? Make it pay for them in some form or other?

I do take your point but I think there are probably other ways the government could speed up things which don't involve grannies having to pack up and ship out!
A time limit on planning permission or a charge for sitting on residential zoned land or something like that, I don't know what exactly I haven't really thought about it all that much to be honest.

Are we really back to this sh*t again?

Comments