The Edmund Honohan plan, in a nutshell, it’s bad policy

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 …

Read More

Newstalk: Talking Point on housing, Saturday 9th April 2016

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.

 

Read More

Six One News looks at the problem of Rent Receivers

Rent receivers are generally sent in when a landlord is unable to meet the terms of their contract. It doesn’t mean they can’t pay anything (although often insolvency is behind it), sometimes the landlord is on an ‘interest only’ term that reverts to capital and interest and the uplift in cost means there is no way they can meet the increased commitment.

The issue is also more common in properties with equity because the bank don’t stand to suffer a loss in that position (they do in properties with negative equity), it’s also used as a more coercive approach to borrowers who want to hold on to trackers, as ‘interest only’ is often extended for people willing to forgo that aspect of their contract.

Unbalanced taxation on property is also a concern, the ability to tax a cash flow loss on residential property makes it a difficult trade off of ‘who shall we upset’ the choice being the bank or Revenue (most opt for the former).

 

Read More