The guy was asleep at the helm or as the next poster said, the Govt don't care.'Rookie error' as junior minister fails to oppose bill
A People Before Profit bill to ban evictions has progressed to detailed scrutiny stage, after the Minister of State for Local Government and Planning accidentally failed to oppose it in the Dáil.www.rte.ie
Might want to rethink.
Why assume it will pass all stages? If the government really had intended to block it, would it not be safer to assume they will be sure to block it at second reading?Assuming it passes all stages, how soon before enactment?
Why assume it will pass all stages? If the government really had intended to block it, would it not be safer to assume they will be sure to block it at second reading?
That's what governments do, block opposition measures.Why would they block it at all?
Getting reelected mainly, and the same applies for most of the opposition.I'm not entirely sure what the Govt care about.
It was hypothetical. Anyway, nobody can be sure what happens till it happens. This bill could be quite divisive and TD's break ranks to vote against the Government.Why would they block it at all?
They don't seem to care about LL leaving, or Tenants being evicted. I'm not entirely sure what the Govt care about.
That's what governments do, block opposition measures.
Getting reelected mainly, and the same applies for most of the opposition.
Politicians are not rewarded for taking hard decisions for the greater good. The electorate want them to pander to their whims and serve their isolated interests. Rent controls are a perfect example of the dysfunction that results, I doubt many politicians realistically expected that they would benefit those calling for them, but the people did call for them in large numbers, and so the politicians had to respond.But they are meant to run the country, provide for its people. They seem to have forgotten that.
The government, and its predecessor, were heavily influenced by housing and homelessness charities, whom in turn were got at by institutional investors, which lobbied hard for and ultimately benefitted from rent controls.They didn't simply do a mirror copy of rent controls though. They tweaked them so properties new to the market could be excluded. I have to assume that wasn't accidental. Its pushed tents higher and older rentals out of the market. Primarily small landlords. Happy coincidence? Unlikely.
evidence shows that were rent regulation & price stability exists investment in rental sector is strongest.
...
Not just us it's what major institutional investors say and what they told event organised by Housing Agency
I suspect they deliberately excluded new-builds as deep down they know the only thing that will ultimately resolve the situation is an increase in supply. If controls had applied to new-builds, even fewer properties would have been built.They didn't simply do a mirror copy of rent controls though. They tweaked them so properties new to the market could be excluded. I have to assume that wasn't accidental.
Yes, but a lot of properties built in the last number of years have been build-to-rent. If rent controls had restricted what they could be rented for, most would not have been built and we'd be in an even worse situation with tens of thousands fewer properties.It would a very obscure and inefficient way to increase new construction. Also it specifically favors new rentals, not new builds.
Media reports such as this one citing more than 50% of units being granted permission are BTR.What stats are you using to quantify the built to rent numbers.
What numbers have you got for build to let in those 1,900 units.
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?