Consequences for undermining property rights in land and housing

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,101
Past governments' regulatory and legal obstacles to housing construction and lack of government investment in housing infrastructure are responsible for the housing crisis. To divert attention from this failure and create the impression of remedial action, the last Fine Gael led government and councils have attacked property rights, hoping to shift the blame for rocketing house prices and rents to landlords and land banks.If the government succeeds in this, it may not tackle the obstacles to construction.

The biggest blow to property rights was introduction of supposedly temporary strict rent controls under former Housing Minister Coveney. This legislation passed despite a High Court ruling in the early 1980s that under the Irish Constitution governments can't interfere with rents and in effect transfer money from a landlord to a tenant.

The claim that the controls would be temporary is questionable given that temporary controls have often proved permanent internationally. Once tenants have a rent well below market rents, they become a political vested interest. In general elections, their votes can be bought by suspending rent increases. Only when the quality of rental housing stock deteriorates for lack of maintenance and new investment is there a good chance that controls will be removed.However, in Ireland's case the permitted increase of 4% a year in rents,if adhered to, could reduce the gap with market rents, making it easier to lift controls.

Another blow to property rights is the threat to remove planning permissions from development land owners who do not meet government targets for housing building. There may be very valid commercial reasons for postponing developments, such as a glut of actual or planned developments in a particular area, lack of finance, scarcity of construction skills, lack of affordability for the large size of apartments dictated under regulations, inability to make a profit on rocketing building costs and, admittedly, speculation from sitting on vacant sites as demand for housing land ramps up. Now that planning officials and local councils have greatly enhanced powers to punish developers with arbitrary planning decisions removed from these commercial realities, developers will have to ingratiate themselves in every way possible with councils to protect their property rights, hardly a desirable situation. The long term effect could deter investment in major housing projects except for developers with very deep pockets who could gamble on today's risky land purchases.

Not satisfied with the above meddlesome regulations, the government is planning to regulate ownership of vacant housing. It ignores the fact that most of the housing is vacant for good reasons such as planned refurbishment and renovation, too low rents to make renting profitable, lack of funds to convert the houses into rental properties and leisure time use.

In their endless desire to attack property rights, the hard left and even the disappearing Labour Party would like to implement the recommendations of the Kenny Report of a generation ago that advocated compulsory purchases of agricultural land for housing at a premium of 20% above agricultural land prices.

That would deprive farmers of sizable capital gains on land with potential for development. While that might seem socially just because it would lower the cost of housing, why confiscate farmers' gains? Why not finance cheap housing by taxing away the huge capital gains on many urban sites beneath houses, especially in Dublin and Cork. Many of those sites are worth maybe half the market value of the selling prices of houses, hundreds of thousands of euros at the top end of the market.

Such windfall gains, along with windfall losses, exist throughout the economy. A commercial complex opening up in a new area can add huge value to existing businesses and residents. But hardly anyone would advise that the increase in the value of those businesses above 20% should be completely taxed away by the government.
 
Last edited:


Cruimh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
83,467
Hopefully housing will soon be treated as with any other basic need and properly regulated - and parasites like you will become history.

There are plenty of buildings. They just are not used efficiently. No more green field developments. Save our environment and heritage.
 

carlovian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
5,273
"That would deprive farmers of sizable capital gains on land with potential for development. While that might seem socially just because it would lower the cost of housing, why confiscate farmers' gains? Why not finance cheap housing by taxing away the huge capital gains on many urban sites beneath houses, especially in Dublin and Cork. Many of those sites are worth maybe half the market value of the selling prices of houses, hundreds of thousands of euros at the top end of the market."

So we can solve the housing crisis, lower house prices so another generation doesn't spend 40 years repaying a house but we shouldnt as it would upset farmers.

Its a tough decision all right.
 

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
The OP is too thick and blind to see the elephant in the room that the cesspool of insiders enriching themselves at our expense like the vulture funds, the crony's of NAMA etc are the very ones on a MASS SCALE undermining property rights in land and housing of most of the people of Ireland. All facilitated as much as possible by the corrupt, cronyist gombeen party's of Fine Fail and Fianna Gael :roll:


Nama: Forgiving big developers; ignoring other distressed borrowers
http://www.villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2011/12/nama-forgiving-big-developers-ignoring-other-distressed-borrowers-october-2011.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,441
Hopefully housing will soon be treated as with any other basic need and properly regulated - and parasites like you will become history.
That is unfair. Nasty, even.

There are plenty of buildings. They just are not used efficiently. No more green field developments. Save our environment and heritage.
I agree 100%. Dublin is littered with fine, but disused and dilapidated buildings.

This is partly a failure of the Irish building industry, which is obsessed with pouring concrete. Innovation and restoration is where it should be at.
 

HarshBuzz

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
11,815
'most of the people of Ireland'

Way to exaggerate there PO :lol:
 

Fr Peter McWhinger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
896
Past governments' regulatory and legal obstacles to housing construction and lack of government investment in housing infrastructure are responsible for the housing crisis. To divert attention from this failure and create the impression of remedial action, the last Fine Gael led government and councils have attacked property rights, hoping to shift the blame for rocketing house prices and rents to landlords and land banks.If the government succeeds in this, it may not tackle the obstacles to construction.

The biggest blow to property rights was introduction of supposedly temporary strict rent controls under former Housing Minister Coveney. This legislation passed despite a High Court ruling in the early 1980s that under the Irish Constitution governments can't interfere with rents and in effect transfer money from a landlord to a tenant.

The claim that the controls would be temporary is questionable given that temporary controls have often proved permanent internationally. Once tenants have a rent well below market rents, they become a political vested interest. In general elections, their votes can be bought by suspending rent increases. Only when the quality of rental housing stock deteriorates for lack of maintenance and new investment is there a good chance that controls will be removed.However, in Ireland's case the permitted increase of 4% a year in rents,if adhered to, could reduce the gap with market rents, making it easier to lift controls.

Another blow to property rights is the threat to remove planning permissions from development land owners who do not meet government targets for housing building. There may be very valid commercial reasons for postponing developments, such as a glut of actual or planned developments in a particular area, lack of finance, scarcity of construction skills, lack of affordability for the large size of apartments dictated under regulations, inability to make a profit on rocketing building costs and, admittedly, speculation from sitting on vacant sites as demand for housing land ramps up. Now that planning officials and local councils have greatly enhanced powers to punish developers with arbitrary planning decisions removed from these commercial realities, developers will have to ingratiate themselves in every way possible with councils to protect their property rights, hardly a desirable situation. The long term effect could deter investment in major housing projects except for developers with very deep pockets who could gamble on today's risky land purchases.

Not satisfied with the above meddlesome regulations, the government is planning to regulate ownership of vacant housing. It ignores the fact that most of the housing is vacant for good reasons such as planned refurbishment and renovation, too low rents to make renting profitable, lack of funds to convert the houses into rental properties and leisure time use.

In their endless desire to attack property rights, the hard left and even the disappearing Labour Party would like to implement the recommendations of the Kenny Report of a generation ago that advocated compulsory purchases of agricultural land for housing at a premium of 20% above agricultural land prices.

That would deprive farmers of sizable capital gains on land with potential for development. While that might seem socially just because it would lower the cost of housing, why confiscate farmers' gains? Why not finance cheap housing by taxing away the huge capital gains on many urban sites beneath houses, especially in Dublin and Cork. Many of those sites are worth maybe half the market value of the selling prices of houses, hundreds of thousands of euros at the top end of the market.

Such windfall gains, along with windfall losses, exist throughout the economy. A commercial complex opening up in a new area can add huge value to existing businesses and residents. But hardly anyone would advise that the increase in the value of those businesses above 20% should be taxed away by the government.
The Planning Regime has enormous capacity for inflicting injustice on property owners users and consumers. Far from regulating land use in the common good it can be allowed and manipulated to inflict massive injustice.

The Planning Regime is about creating artificial scarcity of building land and by extension housing. The main reason is to allow housing as a commodity to be taxed in various ways in order to create an income stream for Government.

A Nation of self sufficient own home builders and own food growers would yield little to tax.

The reason that building land might be valuable is that it is likely restricted by way of a building prohibition in many other places.

A Wag one remarked to me that in Rural Ireland you can get planning permission for a house anywhere you would not want it.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,101
"That would deprive farmers of sizable capital gains on land with potential for development. While that might seem socially just because it would lower the cost of housing, why confiscate farmers' gains? Why not finance cheap housing by taxing away the huge capital gains on many urban sites beneath houses, especially in Dublin and Cork. Many of those sites are worth maybe half the market value of the selling prices of houses, hundreds of thousands of euros at the top end of the market."

So we can solve the housing crisis, lower house prices so another generation doesn't spend 40 years repaying a house but we shouldnt as it would upset farmers.

Its a tough decision all right.
Why confine the confiscation to farmers? Why not confiscate half your bank account or the capital gain on the site under your house. Socialists always want to confiscate other peoples' property.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,101
That is unfair. Nasty, even.



I agree 100%. Dublin is littered with fine, but disused and dilapidated buildings.

This is partly a failure of the Irish building industry, which is obsessed with pouring concrete. Innovation and restoration is where it should be at.
Regulations in Dublin dictating very large apartment sizes averaging a crazy 900 square feet which is unaffordable to most young buyers have held up an awful lot of potential construction.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,101
The Planning Regime has enormous capacity for inflicting injustice on property owners users and consumers. Far from regulating land use in the common good it can be allowed and manipulated to inflict massive injustice.

The Planning Regime is about creating artificial scarcity of building land and by extension housing. The main reason is to allow housing as a commodity to be taxed in various ways in order to create an income stream for Government.

A Nation of self sufficient own home builders and own food growers would yield little to tax.

The reason that building land might be valuable is that it is likely restricted by way of a building prohibition in many other places.

A Wag one remarked to me that in Rural Ireland you can get planning permission for a house anywhere you would not want it.
Pandering to NIMBY home owners who influence elections explains most of the regulatory obstacles to housing building.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
The exorbitantly high price of land, benefits next to nobody. Agricultural land prices are ridiculous, yet throw in the value added by zoning and then by a granted planning permission, then we're entering the twilight zone under the current set up. Measures, whatever they may be, to tackle this is a large part of the solution. The use of CPO's or perhaps strengthening such powers is only a part of the solution and won't address the issues and I think should be a measure of last resort.

As for tackling dereliction and vacancy, got to be more pro-active about it. Perhaps if neighbouring property owners could sue those who let theirs go to rack and ruin, thus de-valuing neighbouring property, this would be a more effective way, nevermind the visual eyesore and anti-social problems that such sites/buildings attract.
 

Hunter-Gatherer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
1,488
during the economic meltdown, rents fell, landlords got shafted between tenants walking away and lending institutions getting nasty.

only a lunatic would want to be a landlord in this country.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
Patslatt: Socialists always want to confiscate other peoples' property.
No. They want to use the resources of the country for the benefit of all the people of the country.
 

Fr Peter McWhinger

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
896
during the economic meltdown, rents fell, landlords got shafted between tenants walking away and lending institutions getting nasty.

only a lunatic would want to be a landlord in this country.
They were not real landlords but chancers who paid twice too much for property and borrowed all most all of the purchase price. There were not canny investors but stupid Mugs who were sheared like sheep.
 

carlovian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
5,273
Why confine the confiscation to farmers? Why not confiscate half your bank account or the capital gain on the site under your house. Socialists always want to confiscate other peoples' property.
Yes Pat, lowering the price of land is the same as confiscating it.

Dont you have another "public sector workers are lazy" thread to start ?
 

PO'Neill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Messages
12,189
Website
www.facebook.com
'most of the people of Ireland'

Way to exaggerate there PO :lol:
Can you be that thick or is it denial that you can't see that the cesspool of insiders enriching themselves at our expense with NAMA, Project Eagle, tax breaks for vulture funds etc
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
46,739
They were not real landlords but chancers who paid twice too much for property and borrowed all most all of the purchase price. There were not canny investors but stupid Mugs who were sheared like sheep.
Back in 2000-2006 period, the line being peddled was that the return on property, was better than the return on pensions.

That particular line was factually correct. The returns on property in terms of capital appreciation and rent yields, far outstripped the returns which pensions were yielding.
This is how many people became landlords. They invested their cash in property, instead of other things such as pensions.
The property was their pension, as they say it.

The financial crash and the devaluation of property values, left many of those same landlords in the manure business.
 

Dan_Murphy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
3,748
In their endless desire to attack property rights, the hard left and even the disappearing Labour Party would like to implement the recommendations of the Kenny Report of a generation ago that advocated compulsory purchases of agricultural land for housing at a premium of 20% above agricultural land prices.

That would deprive farmers of sizable capital gains on land with potential for development. While that might seem socially just because it would lower the cost of housing, why confiscate farmers' gains?
Because those gains are solely at the discretion of councillors and give a huge incentive for bribing politicians.
 

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
Regulations in Dublin dictating very large apartment sizes averaging a crazy 900 square feet which is unaffordable to most young buyers have held up an awful lot of potential construction.
900sq ff is the same as a basic 3bed semi. Just enough to provide some quality of life for a family. The unaffordability is not because it's 900sq ft.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,441
No. They want to use the resources of the country for the benefit of all the people of the country.
Parasitic socialists want to steal the fruits of other people's hard work and initiative.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top