Punishing Landlords will cost us all

irishtimes.com/newspaper/com … 24460.html

He doesn’t appear to want to talk about job losses through uncompetitive businesses.
Or the spate of examinerships to try to get out of onerous leases.

I’ve no time for FG/Labour either. They’d talk about something sensible like this but they’d never implement it.

The Rentier class of landlords is all powerful in this country.
I can sort of see where he’s coming from on Nama as a landlord.

cough

That piece is a series of justifications for denying reality. It is a thundering disgrace, made all the worse for being so self serving.

Mr. Nowlan, do one you numpty.

From the ever-present ( :angry: ) Green Bear in March 2009 …

thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19867&p=225778&hilit=#p225778

Scroll down to jacobmarley post, if you don’t have an IT subscription.

Cue just under 2 years later on 16.02.2011

Yup … you can say that again Bill !

(I’m now awaiting a ‘Where’s my Investment Property Fund NAMA’ article in 2 years).

Pity he never mentioned that fact that he’s on the NAMA payroll as an indepentent valuer…

My response to his points:

  1. The value of investment property has already fallen, unsustainable high rents lead to firms going “bust”, and upward only clauses in leases are powerless against a “bust” firm. Investors already have a view taken on such outcomes.
  2. The taxpayer is already funding this same amount through higher costs of goods caused by high rents. If this cost is to be borne anyway, it should be done through the bank bailout mechanism.
  3. Again, the value that NAMA paid is irrelevant if the tenant cannot stay in business. Incidentally, Bill Nowlan is one of the few paid valuers working for NAMA, he has access to information that the rest of us do not.
  4. Ireland and the UK are the only 2 countries with “upward only” lease clauses, this hasn’t prevented investors from investing in every other country. Investors are concerned with returns, if tenants cannot afford to remain in business, the returns will “evaporate” quicker than the investors.
  5. This maybe the case, I am not a constitutional lawyer. However, I cannot see how aligning our Landlord and Tenant Law with that of other countries should deter investors in the long run.
  6. Debateable.
  7. We already are the laughing stock, our “Celtic Tiger” was all based on borrowed money. Incidentally, the proposal will not technically introduce legislation to reduce rents, it will merely prohibit the clause that new rents MUST be the same or higher.

Attempting to retain a false “floor” on commercial is a short sighted and foolish policy, irrespective of existing contract law. It is one of the major problems facing businesses throughout the country, and must be addressed.

I’m also a valuer and have to say that the value of “upward only” clauses is rather negligible for non-prime regionnal properties at the moment.

I am curious though about the potential for compensation claims should the clauses be removed.

Who is this “us” that Bill speaks of? Is he trying to pretend that his interests in this question are aligned with those of the average citizen? Apart from that, the article is full of the sort of misrepresentation and straw men that vested interests in Ireland routinely deploy in order to defend the indefensible. Bill would seemingly have us believe that the removal of UORRs would lead to commercial tenants not having to pay any rent at all .

Commercial rents need to be hammered down by any means necessary. The alternative to depriving the likes of Bill of his windfall profits is a stagnant or shrinking economy…i.e. more rounds of shit sandwiches for everyone else. The dude who posted his paper on the removal of UORRs on here recently was playing the same game. These people routinely pretend that the preservation of unrealistically high levels of commercial rent have no negative implications for the real (i.e. productive / employment generating) economy. This guy then has the neck to accuse other people of failing to understand economics!!

What is needed is a correction of the current situation where commercial rents are kept at absurdly inflated levels, without any regard for the wider economic context, by a legislative anomaly.

Not punishing the commercial landlords will cost us all MORE. I say squeeze the rentiers 'til the pips sqeak!

Simple question here: without his NAMA gig, would Bill be able to earn a living in the current market?
Or isn’t the IT article really just a glorified pre-job application to one of the overseas investors that he cares so much about?
An appeal to strangers whose kindness may need to be tapped soon?

rte.ie/news/2010/0610/rent.html

So half a billion to landlords every year, then we have NAMA hoarding property, clowns like that guy valuing property for NAMA, NAMA paying developers to build more to hoarde and Lenihan giving our money away to the banks…!

Taxes will rise, salaries will drop and rents & property prices…well they wont drop much until the country goes bankrupt…!! This will be a very long drawn out affair. Should have bitten the bullet in 2008 like Iceland did.
I think if we have a referendum now people would vote to let the banks fail and default on the loans.

On the topic of the sanctity of contract I love this from Keynes

“There is a respectable and influential body of opinion which… fulminates alike against devaluations and levies, on the ground that they infringe the untouchable sacredness of contract… Yet such persons, by overlooking one of the greatest of all social principles, namely the fundamental distinction between the right of the individual to repudiate contract and the right of the State to control vested interest, are the worst enemies of what they seek to preserve. For nothing can preserve the integrity of contract between individuals except a discretionary authority in the State to revise what has become intolerable. The powers of uninterrupted usury are great. If the accreations of vested interest were to grow without mitigation for many generations, half the population would be no better than slaves to the other half… The absolutists of contract… are the real parents of revolution…”

Contrast with actual reality, where it’s the Duke of Westminster who’s getting burnt by this, not some fictional “elderly widow”.

From ashes to ashes dust to dust, there are no landlords. They don’t exist.

ft.com/cms/s/0/92c4dbc0-4111 … abdc0.html

Where does your rent go?

irishtimes.com/letters/index … 4291007211

To ashes and dust.