This clip is a good insight into the many facets of the housing debate when looking at the ‘crisis’ end of the spectrum. It raised some interesting issues and commentary. One thing we want to state is that there was an implication that if a fund bought your mortgage that you might be able to get thrown out rapidly, we should state clearly that this simply isn’t the case and is likely a misinterpretation of fact than a stance which is there to deliberately mislead.
UTV hosted a conversation about the new Mortgage Bill that went through the Dail last night. The conversation was hosted by Claire Brock and the panel was made up of Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein), Stephen Curtis (IMHO) and Karl Deeter of Irish Mortgage Brokers.
In this piece which appeared originally in the Sunday Business Post on the 8th of May 2016, Karl Deeter questions the conventional wisdom of calls for a right to housing (or housing equality) being about ‘rights’ and that it is perhaps more about money and governance.
The script after this text in italics is the text of the article that was published.
When we hear people talk about inequality or social issues like housing, is it about money and process or is it about rights? This may seem obvious at first, but when you start to look into it, often it’s not so simple.
It’s obvious that a person with no place to call home isn’t equal to those who have such a place (be it rented or owned) and civil society generally accepts that this implies a certain level of duty on the rest of us.
Usually the state helps to equalise this situation by making the provision of a place to call home possible, be it social housing or emergency accommodation. This would lead to the assumption that …
The Irish Times carried an article by John McCartney (Savills), Lorcan Sirr (DIT Bolton St) and Karl Deeter (Irish Mortgage Brokers) about the issues surrounding a shift away from a home ownership model.
Our point isn’t that there is a definitive ‘right or wrong’ way to provide housing, obviously our market has massive issues at present, but the larger question is the long run effects and how a lack of household savings can turn a property crisis into a pension crisis of sorts.
That is why we need to find new solutions for more than just housing.
The Irish Planning Institute held their national convention in Athlone and we were pleased to see one of our own as one of the opening speakers at it. The points raised about planning, housing, and the importance of household wealth were received well by the audience which was about 300 strong and made up of the key players in planning throughout Ireland.
Claire O’Sullivan of The Irish Examiner followed up with a good piece on the conference and quoted Karl Deeter extensively, the excerpts from the article are below.
The Government should consider removing the rights of people to object to proposed developments as it is hugely costly, causes delays, and is not necessary, the Irish Planning Institute’s annual conference heard.
A compliance manager with the Irish Mortgage Brokers Association, Karl Deeter, said instead there should be greater trust in the ability of planners and the local authority.
He said a “third party right to object” did not exist in many countries as the planning departments and local authority are expected to make the correct decision.
“The role …
Last night on Claire Byrne Live the Master of the High Court, Edmund Honohan said that the constitution didn’t stand in the way of the state being able to pursue certain social agendas when it came to property and property rights.
This hinged on the back of an article in which the Minister with responsibility for housing Alan Kelly apparently said that the constitution blocked his ability to resolve our housing crisis, Honohan rebutted this with an open letter in the Sunday Independent.
What follows is an extract of the letter: Consequently, if the Oireachtas is of the view that the State should itself (or its local authorities) provide public housing “in the Common Good”, the State can (and probably, legally, should) decide not to wait the two/three years needed to build social housing but instead to immediately acquire houses now in private hands.
If the owners of these refuse to sell, acquisition can be by compulsory purchase with full compensation assessed by the arbitrator.
It so happens that there is a stock of such housing which has …
This week on Talking Point the host Sarah Carey did a great job of examining housing issues with the panel of guests which in studio included Lorcan Sirr of DIT, Dermot Lacey a Labour Party Councillor and Karl Deeter of Irish Mortgage Brokers.
Many relevant points were made about tenure, about supply constraints and solutions as well as discussions about things that don’t often make the press – such as permanent tenures and the like. It is well worth listening back on given the breadth and expert insight of the show.
Mark Keenan quoted Irish Mortgage Brokers on the topic of how the Central Bank regulations were affecting prospective property buyers.
Meanwhile, Karl Deeter of Irish Mortgage Brokers described Mr Frisell’s comment as “effectively engaged in social engineering”.
“If they know that shifting people from ownership and into rental is the outcome of their policy, and they keep on doing it, then we have to assume that this is the outcome they have been pursuing,” he said.
It is only due to fairly unsatisfactory outcomes with the PRTB (such as massive delays in hearings, awarding damages that will never be recovered and the fact that they jacked up their prices while also only charging one party to the contract) that the idea of them running any further ‘scheme’ is of concern.
On that basis, and in speaking to landlords, many of them won’t take part, and there’s a simple reason for it, they don’t want to be part of a scheme that creates more administration and reduces the relationship to being further beholden to a third party.
So here’s the way around it: stop taking deposits.
That’s all there is to it, landlords should merely stop taking deposits and when they do there will be nothing to give to the PRTB because the deposit was never received so it cannot be passed on.
What you can do is demand first and last months rent up front. This means you don’t hold a deposit for any damage, but if the damage is significant a deposit won’t cover it …
VAT is an end user tax, the ‘cost’ to businesses is zero. That fact is often overlooked in all debates about VAT, a business has input and output VAT, if they take in more than they charge they send the balance to Revenue, if they pay out more than they take in they are in a refund situation.
So why would dropping the VAT rate make any difference at all if the cost to the business doesn’t change as a result of it?
The normal implication is that the end user would benefit because you would have a ‘cost plus’ that would result in a lower end price, which intuitively makes sense until you consider the other issue of bottom up costs and obvious capacity for additional profit taking.
What that means is there are bottom up costs like various levies, regulations, and carry costs that make the break even point higher than it might naturally be, certainly higher than it ought to be if you go by international standards. If current costs are above break even a lower VAT …