I wonder are they referring to homelessness among the tenants or the landlords? At this stage of the game I reckon a lot of landlords who put up their PPR as collateral for their investment properties are the ones at greater danger of homelessness from falling rents!
This was debunked so a certain extent by the simple act of getting Paddy O Gorman out with a Microphone
to ask the people who avail of this if their rents were falling. They were, in some cases.
I don’t get the problem. The Government is the biggest renter in the state.
Go out there and haggle.
If a landlord refuses to haggle, then cut him/her loose and rent from someone else.
Do this a few times and see how much can be saved.
These organisations that are supposed to be helping the homeless seem to have their
wires crossed. The high cost of accomodation is one of the things that contributes
to homelessness. The state subsidies contribute to that high cost.
This is BS. If anyone actually had been made homeless by these measures then they would be shouting it from the rooftops. Increased risk means nothing. My opting for a skinny rather than a regular latte this morning puts me at increased risk of developing a Hasselhoff like hunky physique. Is it a significant risk? I think not.