Idiot politicians' guide to rent freezes

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
Regarding the potential harmful effects of proposed rent freezes, a simple example should educate idiot politicians who sincerely believe in rent freezes and are not cynically buying tenant votes. Say lots of young single people each occupiy roughly 800 square feet housing units and can only afford the rents in a rent freeze,but would move to smaller, cheaper units if rents rose. At the same time, couples are looking for 800 square feet units in the same area. If the rent freeze applies, the single people can stay put, making it very difficult for the couples to find rental housing. To a lesser extent, this also applies as long as controlled rents are below what a free market rent would be. So preventing market rent increases prevents an efficient allocation of available housing supply.
At the same time, strict rent controls and freezes reduce investment in rental housing below what it would be in a free market. That contributes to the housing crisis.
 


lff12

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
385
That isn't really the issue though - effectively what you are suggesting may already be happening because no tenant in a lower than market rent unit (i.e. a significant chunk of the market) will move until they have to.
The problem with the rent freeze is the likelihood of a legal action based on constitutionality. Presuming landlords haven't done so over existing controls isn't a guarantee that they won't.
As for free market - its only a free market right now if you are a landlord.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
Your last line contradicts itself by saying a rent controlled market is a free market.
The fact that those landlords who increased rents to the max are doing well doesn't negate the point that strict rent controls and especially a rent freeze prevent efficient allocation of available rental housing,screwing newcomers looking for housing, while reducing potential investment in housing. Strick rent controls backfire.
 

mr_anderson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
9,838
Rent is the symptom, not the problem.
Rent freezes only make supply worse.

Berlin is always cited as a country where rent controls worked.
Well they did.
Until demand exceeded supply.
And then they didnt.

The only solution is to build more whilst also reducing demand.
The government is screaming for more to be built, whilst simultaneously taxing and regulating (which increases costs) beyond what people can afford.

It's also importing massive amounts of homeless people, shooting up the amount on HAP.

Make no mistake, the government is the problem.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
16,919
Rent is the symptom, not the problem.
Rent freezes only make supply worse.

Berlin is always cited as a country where rent controls worked.
Well they did.
Until demand exceeded supply.
And then they didnt.

The only solution is to build more whilst also reducing demand.
The government is screaming for more to be built, whilst simultaneously taxing and regulating (which increases costs) beyond what people can afford.

It's also importing massive amounts of homeless people, shooting up the amount on HAP.

Make no mistake, the government is the problem.
Just as rural people have always been told that they'd have to leave their home places because the state couldn't afford to provide services, infrastructure and jobs, so Dubs need to be told that they'll have to leave the city if they want social housing because the state can't afford it.

Never going to happen of course because the biggest parish pump in the country won't be left untended.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
32,236
Twitter
No
Commanism, Pat, 'tis pure unadulterated commanism and if expenses move for the business community by as much as a penny we'll all surely be kilt nearly completely in our beds :)
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,278
freeze me hole ****s thats not payin should be threw out end of!!!!
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
Rent is the symptom, not the problem.
Rent freezes only make supply worse.

Berlin is always cited as a country where rent controls worked.
Well they did.
Until demand exceeded supply.
And then they didnt.

The only solution is to build more whilst also reducing demand.
The government is screaming for more to be built, whilst simultaneously taxing and regulating (which increases costs) beyond what people can afford.

It's also importing massive amounts of homeless people, shooting up the amount on HAP.

Make no mistake, the government is the problem.
Right wing President Reagan said people should be terrified when they hear, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
Commanism, Pat, 'tis pure unadulterated commanism and if expenses move for the business community by as much as a penny we'll all surely be kilt nearly completely in our beds :)
There are a lot of closet neocommunists in politics who want to see the private sector become an overregulated and overtaxed socialist lapdog.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
2,698
The government is screaming for more to be built, whilst simultaneously taxing and regulating (which increases costs) beyond what people can afford.
It's also importing massive amounts of homeless people, shooting up the amount on HAP.
Make no mistake, the government is the problem.
Don't forget the ban on cheap bedsits a few years ago. Championed by Eamon Ryan as far as I remember. While a bedsit in Rathmines is nobody's idea of a dream accommodation, its still a helluva lot better (and safer) than a tent on the banks of the canal.
The likes of Coveney does not want cheap accommodation anyway. His family wealth has been based on owning and renting out property for generations, along with their property investment portfolios of property related funds etc.
A lot of people are making a lot of money out of the homeless industry and the asylum industry. The flip side of that is the taxpayer is paying through the nose for all those hotel bills.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
Don't forget the ban on cheap bedsits a few years ago. Championed by Eamon Ryan as far as I remember. While a bedsit in Rathmines is nobody's idea of a dream accommodation, its still a helluva lot better (and safer) than a tent on the banks of the canal.
The likes of Coveney does not want cheap accommodation anyway. His family wealth has been based on owning and renting out property for generations, along with their property investment portfolios of property related funds etc.
A lot of people are making a lot of money out of the homeless industry and the asylum industry. The flip side of that is the taxpayer is paying through the nose for all those hotel bills.
The politically expedient argument is that the ban raised housing standards. The ban may have,but at the expense of the bottom rung of tenants: lowest income, antisocial, addiction problems etc. At the time of the ban, I joked not to worry, the big hearted Greens who introduced the ban would take the homeless into their own homes.
The proper way to raise standards is for the local governments and courts to reduce planning permission red tape to allow increased housing building. Once the housing supply increases to balance the market, the bedsits would be competed out of existence.
The government has made four revolutionary policy changes in recent years,though belatedly: increasing the height of rental buildings to 21 stories from 7;appointing Bord Pleanala to fast track housing projects of 100 or more;pressuring Dublin councils to reduce gold plated planning standards for apartment buildings such as unaffordable average sizes of about 80 square metres (not unaffordable to well paid council workers ,though);and reviving the government's role in supplying social and affordable housing.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
32,236
Twitter
No
Less red tape ... unchaining the landlord ... 'nother little featherbedder rule for the haves masquerading as a policy on homelessness. How are things over at IBEC these days, Pat?

Gone are the days when our bankers, the social colossi, were used to getting up on their hind legs to lecture us all what should be done about social problems. And always the tune is the same. Give the wealthy more of an advantage because then they can put more pennies in the homeless person's hat.

I recall Sean Fitzpatrick involving himself in the debate over the cost of single mothers to the exchequer just a couple of years before he and his bank blew a planet sized hole in the national finances well beyond the disruptive dreams of all single mothers since the foundation of the state could manage all together.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
32,236
Twitter
No
Tell you what, Pat. I'll give you an example of where rent freezes have provided a new market for property speculators. In the UK protected tenancies were introduced by a Labour Government to combat the rotten landlords looting off barely habitable properties in those days.

The free market system then devised a new way of looking at those protected tenancies across the UK. The speculators instead realising that properties with protected tenancies couldn't be sold on the market until the protected tenancy had been brought to an end. This created a market in the trading of discounted properties.

A semi near Luton worth £100k on the open market with vacant possession was valued that way. A semi near Luton with a protected tenancy in place could be sold between speculators at a 30% discount to the market, say £70k.

This actually did create quite a vibrant market because as the tenant got older and into their 70s say, then the value of the property would creep closer to £100k than the £70k.

It ended up attracting speculators specialising in that area and in the buying up of freeholds with attached leases, which could be then massaged also to produce a profit as leaseholders elected to buy a lease extension in order to make the property more valuable.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,819
Twitter
No
If the state really expects another million peeps by 2040, then rent controls in small areas is only tinkering round the edges.

There are great stretches of green within 10km of the M50.

There is a land agency to assign state lands for building.

There are pre-fab houses if you can't find builders ......



 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
2,698
The politically expedient argument is that the ban raised housing standards. The ban may have,but at the expense of the bottom rung of tenants: lowest income, antisocial, addiction problems etc. At the time of the ban, I joked not to worry, the big hearted Greens who introduced the ban would take the homeless into their own homes.
The proper way to raise standards is for the local governments and courts to reduce planning permission red tape to allow increased housing building. Once the housing supply increases to balance the market, the bedsits would be competed out of existence.
The government has made four revolutionary policy changes in recent years,though belatedly: increasing the height of rental buildings to 21 stories from 7;appointing Bord Pleanala to fast track housing projects of 100 or more;pressuring Dublin councils to reduce gold plated planning standards for apartment buildings such as unaffordable average sizes of about 80 square metres (not unaffordable to well paid council workers ,though);and reviving the government's role in supplying social and affordable housing.
Good points. Another one was DCC attempt to ban "single aspect" apartments. Again, like the bedsit thing, it would be great if everybody could afford to turn their noses up at them. But not everybody can afford to, so its better to give people the choice.
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
2,698

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,819
Twitter
No
That's an interesting offer by Bo Klok.
I presume they would be equally willing to set up in this country too, if some politician were to invite them in.

Thanks be to god it's not Blo Kok
 

Supra

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
2,339
Regarding the potential harmful effects of proposed rent freezes, a simple example should educate idiot politicians who sincerely believe in rent freezes and are not cynically buying tenant votes. Say lots of young single people each occupiy roughly 800 square feet housing units and can only afford the rents in a rent freeze,but would move to smaller, cheaper units if rents rose. At the same time, couples are looking for 800 square feet units in the same area. If the rent freeze applies, the single people can stay put, making it very difficult for the couples to find rental housing. To a lesser extent, this also applies as long as controlled rents are below what a free market rent would be. So preventing market rent increases prevents an efficient allocation of available housing supply.
At the same time, strict rent controls and freezes reduce investment in rental housing below what it would be in a free market. That contributes to the housing crisis.
This is might work in a normal housing market. We have a manipulated housing market already and it has been heading in one direction. Rent freezes are proposed to provide stability for a short period in order to allow the problems to be addressed. Right now we addressing the rental problems after the fact which is costing all resources. A short stable time frame to correct this is needed.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
This is might work in a normal housing market. We have a manipulated housing market already and it has been heading in one direction. Rent freezes are proposed to provide stability for a short period in order to allow the problems to be addressed. Right now we addressing the rental problems after the fact which is costing all resources. A short stable time frame to correct this is needed.
Rent freezes even if short term screw up the allocation of supply and undermine investor confidence in housing. Temporary rent controls internationally have had a bad habit of becoming permanent as a political constituency builds up among tenants for them.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,750
Less red tape ... unchaining the landlord ... 'nother little featherbedder rule for the haves masquerading as a policy on homelessness. How are things over at IBEC these days, Pat?

Gone are the days when our bankers, the social colossi, were used to getting up on their hind legs to lecture us all what should be done about social problems. And always the tune is the same. Give the wealthy more of an advantage because then they can put more pennies in the homeless person's hat.

I recall Sean Fitzpatrick involving himself in the debate over the cost of single mothers to the exchequer just a couple of years before he and his bank blew a planet sized hole in the national finances well beyond the disruptive dreams of all single mothers since the foundation of the state could manage all together.
You need to study Economics 101 and read some history of how rent controls impact on housing supply and quality instead of spouting lefty nonsense.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top