The erstwhile renter becomes an owner occupier.
Zero sum game in this case.
One property gone from the rental market cancelled out by one or more renters that are also gone.
The erstwhile renter becomes an owner occupier.This is what they are doing, in droves, Most of these properties are being bought by owner occupier, thus further limiting the rental supply.
I presume that you mean "impinge" but I realise that YANAL.
Emphasis is mine.Fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution
The Irish Constitution recognises and declares that you have certain fundamental personal rights. These are confirmed and protected by the Constitution.www.citizensinformation.ie
Balderdash, and you know it, a portion of these new owner occupiers would have lived with Mummy and Daddy.The erstwhile renter becomes an owner occupier.
Zero sum game in this case.
One property gone from the rental market cancelled out by one or more renters that are also gone.
I know a lot of landlords that earn a living maintaining their property portfolios.It is a right to work and earn an income. We are talking about an unearned income. It's not a right to earn an income that covers every unfortunate decision one take.
So they are earning a living... Could the state be liable for their loss of income from the rent controls. He is earning an income. It's not sufficient to cover his debt.I know a lot of landlord that earn a living maintaining their property portfolios.
Trying to change the goalposts now?The right to earn a livelihood
As a citizen, you have a right to work and to earn a living, whether you are male or female. However, that general right doesn’t mean that you can insist on being employed in a particular role or area or by a particular employer.
This includes a landlord.
In any case, the aforementioned cap on bankers' remuneration shows that the state can, and does, place restrictions on individuals' ability to earn a living.I am afraid all these issues listed by you do not impinge on a citizen‘s property rights under the constitution
Could the state be liable for their loss of income from the rent controls
This is an article from the Irish Constitution silly. I Why would I be in court, once again your jumping to some strange conclusions.Trying to change the goalposts now?
Your original reference to constitutional rights was this:
In any case, the aforementioned cap on bankers' remuneration shows that the state can, and does, place restrictions on individuals' ability to earn a living.
Anyway, I look forward to reading about your day in court in the paper.
Simply because some legal eagles that you know say so?Yes.
I know. But you originally cited constitutional rights relating to property ownership, only to then change tack and cite those related to earning a living. Neither obviously support your claims that the state is liable here. But IANAL either.This is from the Irish Constitution
That’s quite obvious.. But IANAL either.
The law is there and hasn't been deemed unconstitutional. It might be challenged one day in court. However it must be noted that other countries have some form of rent controls with nearly the same property rights (word for word) in their constitution.That’s quite obvious.
If you think bankers pay was really capped and they were not given deferred share options etc, your wet behind the ears. Welcome to the real world, all that is stated in public is not always true.Trying to change the goalposts now?
Your original reference to constitutional rights was this:
In any case, the aforementioned cap on bankers' remuneration shows that the state can, and does, place restrictions on individuals' ability to earn a living.
Anyway, I look forward to reading about your day in court in the paper.
Can you name these Countries?The law is there and hasn't been deemed unconstitutional. It might be challenged one day in court. However it must be noted that other countries have some form of rent controls with nearly the same property rights (word for word) in their constitution.
They could try to challenge the law if they so wish. It does not mean they would win. It's not because someone doesn't agree with a law that it is unconstitutional.That’s quite obvious.
Now back to the original scenario, what would you do if you were the borrower in that case. Let me guess, roll over and play dead.
Art 17 French Constitution. France has some form of rent controls as that you can't increase more than a fixed percentage during a lease.Can you name these Countries?
Your being a silly billy now,
even by your standards this is bonkers stuff.
IANAL There have been three significant Supreme Court judgments in the 1980s and 1990s, including one which struck down rent controls on the basis of property rights. These three judgments form cases precedent on the issue. Paul Gallagher AG gave advice that rent freezes would be open to constitutional challenge and most likely would be found unlawful.They could try to challenge the law if they so wish. It does not mean they would win. It's not because someone doesn't agree with a law that it is unconstitutional.
Art 17 French Constitution. France has some form of rent controls as that you can't increase more than a fixed percentage during a lease.
There is no reference to rent controls in the French constitution. It would be unlikely to see what would be an ever changing policy becoming enshrined in any constitution.They could try to challenge the law if they so wish. It does not mean they would win. It's not because someone doesn't agree with a law that it is unconstitutional.
Art 17 French Constitution. France has some form of rent controls as that you can't increase more than a fixed percentage during a lease.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?