ESPLAGER: Perché il governo vuole sbarazzarsi delle zone di pressione dell’affitto?

Because all the evidence is that they make things worse. Of course it’s an emotive topic and can seem easy to criticise and the media will do no favours finding sad cases to highlight without explaining the economic logic of removing them.

More rent, more money, more profit.

It’s because they hate their own citizens, they want everyone to pay 2-3k per month in rent to faceless REIT’s so they can claim to get building moving again or some other lies they continually push.

>The report stated that the regulatory framework has become “more and more complicated for landlords”

Boo fucking hoo. Landlords want rental properties to be entirely passive investments that they don’t have to do any work for, ever. It’s pathetic.

Because they are all landlords or have brown envelope landlord pals or both

The economics of building new homes in Ireland are not working so we are building far too few. The problems are multi-faceted, but one of the big issues is that too little money is being invested because for a whole load of reasons it is not economically attractive. Ideally, the solution lies in getting funding working for a mix of private build-to-own, private build-to-let, public build-to-let and some public build-to-own. None of these funding pillars work well right now, and we really need to get them all working in concert if we are going to resolve our housing shortages. That means that, like it or not, among many other issues we have to fix the economics of private build-to-let.

The economics of private build-to-let are problematic right now. One of the big issues is that the current scheme under which rental caps increase by the lesser of inflation or 2% will cause the real value of rent on a property to fall over time, while the real cost of maintaining it will increase (because services inflation is generally higher than total inflation). Coupled with the real possibility that a future government will hit rental returns harder, this means that even the objectively high rents we see now will not provide sufficient expectations of returns to drive the levels of private build-to-let construction that we need to see.

Realistically, over the long run we should probably expect to see rents increase roughly in proportion to incomes, which over the long run will average a little ahead of inflation. If rents run ahead of that, rentiers will be coining it. If investors expect that rents will run far behind that, expected returns on investment will be insufficient to attract adequate market funding to private build-to-let and we will perpetuate the shortage.

Suppose unless the government were going to cap the expenses related to providing rentals at 2% revising RPZ was always going to be on the table at some stage.

Rent pressure zones are terrible policy that reduces future developments and prolongs housing crises. That’s a fact.

But the situation that caused the need for them is the governments fault.

Because they are a government of landlords, for landlords.

The IMF did not say what the Irish government and the commission say they did. Not at all. They did however have about six headline recommendations, none of which I have heard the government discuss or point at.

This is just a high stakes gamble, it COULD boost supply, but if this fails rents, go up and supply stays down your looking at a situation where you have mass evictions and most likely mass unrest.