Why there is so little house building in Ireland

Jim2007 said:
Why the automatic assumption that houses must be built??? There is a need to provide social accommodation, but that does not automatically mean that we should built more houses...
Click to expand...

Hi Jim

Not sure I follow you. How can we provide accommodation without building it?

Maybe shift those on social welfare down to the ghost estates in Leitrim?


Brendan
 
As far as I'm aware despite the recession the costs of the raw materials has gone up.

It is also my understanding that in certain sectors, particularly in Dublin, there are agreements as to how much certain trades can be paid, as in electrical, plumbing, etc. What impact does this have on the cost of housebuilding in Dublin.

If you are doing a self build one has no such constraints.

This idea of mine won't be popular as people love to hate landlords, but I'm convinced that the costs of being a landlord have priced investors out of the market. And who provides better social housing, landlords or local government.

It is essential that proper planning comes into play before the building industry has created another panic situation whereby any type of shoebox will be allowed to be built. Apartments that are of a suitable size to house families with dedicated green areas would be a very good idea. I have never understood the Irish obsession of building loads of houses around a large green area, with the road around it, and cars parking withing a hairs breath. The green area should be at the back, with say gated access from each of the houses. It's a nonsense creating green areas where you cannot bring your kids safely.
 
Bronte said:
This idea of mine won't be popular as people love to hate landlords, but I'm convinced that the costs of being a landlord have priced investors out of the market. And who provides better social housing, landlords or local government.
Click to expand...

I agree. The single biggest reason rents are going up is that landlords have to pay income tax on their turnover instead of their income. There is no other business where this happens.
 
Purple said:
I agree. The single biggest reason rents are going up is that landlords have to pay income tax on their turnover instead of their income. There is no other business where this happens.
Click to expand...

To be honest Purple I don't know how other landlords are able to keep going, particularly anyone who bought in the 10 years of boom. There is no way it makes sense. It is probably this market that are able to now increase their rents massively and are doing so at the behest of their bank. It's a very viscious circle.

Which reminds me, Bacon report, the government implemented that for about 3 years, meaning new landlords could not write off mortgage interest at all, it caused untold chaos. Which is why they reversed it very quickly.
 
Bronte said:
This idea of mine won't be popular as people love to hate landlords, but I'm convinced that the costs of being a landlord have priced investors out of the market. And who provides better social housing, landlords or local government.
Click to expand...
The more important question should be 'who provides more secure and sustainable social housing, landlords or government? It's not about 'hating landlords'. It is just recognising that landlords will (not surprisingly) take the best paying tenant they can find. In a rising market, that leaves many people dependant on rent allowance priced out of the market, and literally homeless. This is not sustainable.


I agree with your points about planning and diversity of housing types, but I disagree with your point about 'gated access to green areas'.
 
The question is what is causing the market to rise? The government has raised the cost of being a landlord considerably by forcing them to pay tax on their turnover rather than their income. This cost has to be passed on to tenants otherwise their financial position is untenable. As this impacts on such a large proportion of landlords that it has to change the market price.
 

Not sure what you mean about the best tenants, I have both types and see really no difference.

Whose fault is it that rent allowance does not match the market rate? Whose fault is it that there is no indexation of rental increases, who brought in the rule that market rent is the rent.

Another reason for the homeless is the abolition of the Bedsit market. That served a certain market, the standards could have been improved without the abolition of the bedsits.

What I mean about the green area at the back, that the houses back onto it and have a gate from each of their houses. But there are no cars so it is safe for kids.
 
I would say that without a doubt private landlords make the best landlords. Speaking as a tenant I would much rather have a private landlord than the local authority. If I lived in an area where most of the properties were rented that would be especially the case. I would hate to have to try to have a disruptive or antisocial neighbour removed or sanctioned if the property was controlled by the local authority.

I do think that there should be stronger protections for tenants and landlords; longer term fixed lease agreements etc. The current system doesn’t give security of tenure to the tenant and makes them less inclined to think of the property as their home.
 
Purple said:
I would hate to have to try to have a disruptive or antisocial neighbour removed or sanctioned if the property was controlled by the local authority.
Click to expand...

Well you've never succeed there, you'd be long since gone mad. But under the PRTB rules, and a recent court case landlords are now responsible to sort out problem tenants, even if they don't seem to have the law behind them on getting the tenants out.

Would love to have a security of tenure system, wouldn't care what they did to the house, paint it any colour they wanted, put up any shelf or thingy, as long as one got a hassle free property, long tenancy, and put back they way it was when the tenant rented it.

Where I am, they measure the height of the hedge when the tenant goes in, and it has to be the same height when the tenant leaves. (I've been both a tenant and owner here, not a landlord)

From my reading of this subject matter of housing, I'm wondering are there many people holding onto empty houses in the Dublin market as they are afraid of renting. Would that be a decent percentage of the housing stock. Does anyone compile those figures?
 

That is a very interesting question.

I presume that most landlords do rent out their houses and don't rely on capital appreciation alone. Especially in Dublin, where the rents are high.

It might not be worth doing if you are getting only a few hundred a month in some overhoused place.
 


You don't need to rent if it's an inheritance that you're holding onto for capital appreciation. Some good houses, one might not want to rent for obvious reasons. For regular houses, if one sees the hassle of renting and the costs, then it might not be worthwhile. I know of one in Dublin, subarbs, they rented it out, had previously lived there, and after 6 months of tenant wanting this that and the other, plus they had by now figured out the taxes etc they decided it wasn't worth the hassle. (no mortgage).

We had one poster here on AAM do the figures and they had come to the conclusion for the return of I think less than 200 Euro a month it was not worth the stress and bother.
 
By 'best tenant' - I mean simply the tenant paying the best rental rate, all other things being equal. In a rising market, people on rent allowance are being priced out. If we start raising rent allowance to 'chase' the market, we create another inflationary bubble.
Bronte said:
Another reason for the homeless is the abolition of the Bedsit market. That served a certain market, the standards could have been improved without the abolition of the bedsits.
Click to expand...
Nah, everybody deserves to have a bedroom separate to their living area. It's just basic at this stage.
 
RainyDay said:
Nah, everybody deserves to have a bedroom separate to their living area. It's just basic at this stage.
Click to expand...

Might be basic to you, but the tenants in that type of housing who are now homeless and haven't a hope of renting in their old location might see it differently.

It solved a housing need. Not everybody wants to cater to the bedsit community.

I have two siblings who rented bedsits in Dublin. The prime consideration was the low price combined with the location.
 
Bedsit was my accomodation for many years in Dublin. obviously basic and shared toilet/shower, but met my meagre student budget and at a relatively young age met all bsic needs adequately.
I accept rainy day's comment for the standard "adult" longer term tenant!
 

A friends uncle lived in a bedsit on the North Circular Road in Dublin when I was younger (actually he was probably his great uncle). The couple that ran the bedsit used to look after him, make sure he ate etc. He wouldn’t move in with relatives and he wouldn’t move in to a nursing home as he wanted his freedom. In reality it was sheltered accommodation. I was there a few times and the place was fine. He lived in ne large room. I’m not saying that sort of thing was common but I’m sure he was not unique. My point is that a one size fits all rule doesn’t fit all.
 
Are there many people now homeless as a result of the bedsit ban? The stuff that I'm hearing about is more about families being priced out of their house or apartment, not bedsits.
 
RainyDay said:
Are there many people now homeless as a result of the bedsit ban? The stuff that I'm hearing about is more about families being priced out of their house or apartment, not bedsits.
Click to expand...

Hi Rainyday

It's all connected.

If the besits are closed down, they will have to spend more to live in apartments, possibly in less convenient locations. So it pushes up the prices all the way up.

Focus Ireland were worried enough to issue a press release on it, after the legislation came in.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/new-laws-could-create-more-homelessness-charity-warns-583467.html
 
Purple said:
The government has raised the cost of being a landlord considerably by forcing them to pay tax on their turnover rather than their income.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this?

Tax is payable on rent (turnover) less allowable deductions. While those deductions don't include all of the interest on borrowings, it does include 75% of it.
 

At last someone said this!
 
Yes indeed, the whole market is inter-connected, though that's a bit different to saying that people are homeless as a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register