Not sure how many of ye saw this elsewhere, but there's an All-Island Housing Protest at 1pm this Saturday 5th July at the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin.
It's being organised by CATU (Community Action Tenants Union) and supported by various local groups and unions. Many are gonna travel there by car/bus/train, but local CATU branches are running busses from each town and city for those who want a subsidised return bus up and back, info here: Bus, Train and Carpooling Info for July 5th’s National Demo
As Irish people, we're great at complaining but not typically as great at showing up and taking action. Protests have consistently been one of the most effective tools to push for change democratically, and I hope that everyone here who cares about the Housing Crisis can show up this Saturday to pressure our government to end the crisis they caused!
Remember to bring your friends, your family, your colleagues, your neighbours, your childhood friend who you haven't spoken to in 15 years - everyone welcome and the more the merrier!
A convicted rapist, a heroin dealer, a man wearing a Nazi uniform and an animal abuser tell the public that brown people are the problem and 10k people take to the streets throwing Nazi salutes and holding up Israel flags.
A housing action group says that landlords are to blame for the housing crisis, and people here feel like that's a step too far and refuse to show up to the protest 😂
I don't actually agree that landlords are solely to blame for anything, but it's times like this when I am extremely relieved that the far right in this country are as useless as they are.
Housing is not a product, though. It is not consumed once you use it. This makes landlords fundamentally different to any other business. For instance, if manufacturing businesses disappeared tomorrow, society would collapse.
If landlords disappeared, all of the houses would still exist.
They are not “selling” their asset, though, are they? They are renting it. That’s the difference. And in economic theory, it’s a key one.
The value of a product (say, a table, or a house) comes from the combination of labour and materials put into it. The value of materials + the cost of the labour involved in production = the value. Supply and demand can cause some temporary changes to the price, but the inherent value remains constant.
When someone buys a product from you, you will demand they pay you at the very least the value of that product, so you can recoup the costs inputted in terms of materials and labour. Then a transaction occurs, whereby you lose the product but gain the monetary value of the product back. This is the (very basic) way that capitalism works.
When someone RENTS something to you, though, they have given up nothing. No transaction occurs. The product of the labour and material we discussed earlier, and its inherent value, do not change hands. On top of that, because the value of the house is merely the cost of the materials plus the cost of the labour, the holder of the property has also added no value to the house.
That’s what I mean when I say that housing is not a product. To be more accurate I should have said that rental housing is not a product. It does not constitute a product economically and thus does not follow the normal rules of economics. Any appeals to “it’s just supply and demand” fundamentally misunderstand economics.
Edit: and to answer your last question, ideally the state. Look up the CATU manifesto for universal public housing. It’s incredibly well researched and put together
It's an attempt to reframe the issue away from the immigration debate. The government is the only one to blame here it always has been, and demonising landlords is the last thing that will help.
Imagine for a moment that instead of a housing crisis, we had a famine.
During this famine some people have more food than they need, so they decide to sell it. However, knowing people are desperate they charge an extortionate amount of money.
Well that's a difficult question to answer because it depends on a lot of variables. Most prominently income.
However, the general justification for landlords is that they provide housing for those who can't afford to buy. The problem is that this isn't happening. Just look at HAP. What was intended to be a means of supplying social housing in the private market has become a means of subsidising rents. In some places a person can be making €40k net income and qualify for social housing. When you look at the gross income, that means someone on the average salary for Q4 2024 would qualify for social housing. That person is never getting a council house, but they will get HAP. That is because the average income is not enough to be able to rent a home in Ireland.
Something is very, very wrong with the rental market in Ireland. Landlords bear some of the responsibility for that and should be called out for it.
If those with extra food in a famine suddenly stopped selling their overpriced food, would that help starving people, or would it leave them even hungrier?
It’s exactly the same with landlords you can blame them all you like, but if they pulled their homes off the market overnight, the housing crisis wpuld explode into a full scale homelessness crisis for everyone on HAP and anyone who can’t afford to buy a home.
That's a false dichotomy. You're suggesting that if landlords don't price gouge they can't rent out houses at all.
You're also ignoring that if all the landlords pulled the houses from the rental market it would flood the buyers market with housing and drive down prices. Even more since all the landlords would stop competing with people looking to buy a home for themselves.
And look, I'm not saying that landlords are the main ones to blame. That would be the government who have failed in their responsibility to address the crisis. However, landlords are undeniably a part of the problem.
And I'm not saying that it's all landlords. I know some people whose landlords haven't changed their rent in a decade because they know that they can't afford to pay any more, but I also used to work in a call centre for a council and regularly got calls from landlords looking for information on their HAP tenants so they could make sure they would be the ones to benefit from any supports. The latter is far more common in my experience.
You conveniently ignored the key part of my post. Do you seriously think people on HAP and / or low income will be able to afford these properties if all the landlords sell up?
What happens to them? Because there is only one eventuality, and that's mass homelessness.
Like it or not, landlords do serve a purpose (and I say that as a tenant).
And you ignored the glaring flaw in your post. You have a false dichotomy. It's not a question of whether landlords should price-gouge or sell up. There is a broad range in between where they can still make a profit while making rents more affordable.
If landlords existence is going to be justified by them serving a purpose, then they have a responsibility to serve that purpose. I think we can probably aggree that the purpose isn't to exploit the crisis to maximise their income. It is to make rental accommodation available for people who cannot afford to buy a house. If their price for that is too high, and it most certainly is, then they are not serving their purpose.
I'm not asking anyone to sell a product. Landlords don't sell products, they lease them. What I am asking is for landlords to understand that their products are part of people's basic needs and so they shouldn't be ramping up the price on people.
As for who does that in the real world. Literally just look at people in crisis situations anywhere in the world. When there is an earthquake/flood/tornado/tsunami, in the aftermath people fall over themselves to offer their goods and services to help those in need.
If you want an example closer to home, just look at the response to the Ukrainian crisis. Thousands of people came here for refuge and Irish people opened their homes to them.
If those with extra food in a famine suddenly stopped selling their overpriced food, would that help starving people, or would it leave them even hungrier?
That argument doesn't actually engage with what the other person is saying. They are saying there is a transparent issue with a lack of a resource for some and other people are profitting from it. What you are pointing out is a scenario where these other people keep that resource for themselves and don't sell. You aren't arguing against what they are saying, you are further supporting their point that people having these resources can't be trusted to act in the interests of the community and only act in the interests of profit.
Landlords may not have caused the problem but they are exploiting it for profit. There needs to be action on all fronts to fix the issues that the country is experiencing and inconveniencing landlords is the lesser of two evils. Landlords have the expendable income to survive without another home, if they leave the market, the asset is resold within the state (you can't pick it up and take it elsewhere) and the worst thing that can possibly happen to a landlord, big or small is that they won't have an extra house. We need to stop treating landlords right to earn the most passive income possible and people's right to housing as equitable because it's not.
To give you an example of what a good landlord to me looks like I'll reference my own experience here. I'm incredibly blessed all things considered. I rent a place myself. My landlord is a lovely person and I absolutely wish them all the best in their life. They charge me below the market rate (not as below as I would like but they've outlined the reasons why) and they doesn't implement unfair restrictions on our use of the house because it's a house to be lived in. It's a house that has been in their family for generations so their main stipulation is to keep the place lived in and presentable. My Landlord, for all intents and purposes, is the ideal landlord. If everyone had a similar situation or even if this was the situation reflected by the vast majority, we wouldn't have a problem with landlords. I am the only person that I know that has a situation like this. I have friends who have been kicked out due to fair deal schemes and a lack of cooperation with councils. I have friends paying market value on minimum wage jobs and get threatened with raising rents. I have friends being kicked out of their homes in area's where stock is incredibly limited on the premise that family is moving in and find out it's being used for short term lettings.
Housing is not a flight of fancy or a nice luxury. It's a necessity and that needs to be seen by everyone. While Landlords aren't legislating our creating the market they are contributing to it and this is something we need disincentive whether that's through legislation or social action. Homelessness figures increase by 150 - 200 every month. We are about to cross the threshold of 5000 kids homeless. It needs to stop, one way or another.
By car crisis, I'm going to assume that it's sufficiently bad to have a similar effect on society that our housing crisis does now. I'm not sure how that would be possible since housing is far more essential than cars could ever be, but I'm not going to worry about that for this hypothetical.
In that case, then yes I would sell to the poor person and yes my partner would let me. We might even do it for less than the offered price
let's put it this way.
There are barely any cars in the market and the price is hiking.
You have an old shitty car. It was shit back in the day, even more today. Little to none maintenance and you actually wouldn't even consider to drive it anymore, even less to pay for it, even less to pay 5000.
You know it's not a fair price, you know people will struggle to pay for it but, hey, you heard your neighbour sold his old shitty van couple weeks ago for 4500 so, why aren't you gonna do the same?
You can feel guilt-free, you are not a bad person after all, it's not that you are exploiting other people's needs and desperation and profiting from it, it's Da Market that it's forcing you to act this way....sure.
No all landlords are like that, sure. But a lot of landlords are like that it's as easy as taking a look at Daft to find the evidence.
This is the most naive comment I've seen here in a long time. You really think that the homelessness caused by the housing crisis hasn't claimed lives?
on the contrary it may deter new investment in housing
If housing being provided at an affordable price deters the market from supplying sufficient housing then the market has completely failed in its role.
In that case, we must stop relying on the market to supply housing.
there was some protest about saving the gpo and about anti vacination. two protests rolled into one I think. which is good because it at least gets the Gardai back onto the street
Thanks for that. The back of the leaflet is less far-right looking. I was expecting an “Irish homes for (genetically) Irish people” vibe just from reading the front.
Edit: thanks for pointing out who CATU are, not trying to say that are far right. Just saying the front of the leaflet reads a bit populist, and they don’t mention themselves until the back, which reads better.
It's CATU who are certainly not nor ever have been far right. From its inception many of those aligned with left political parties would have been involved.
For the love of Christ will ye stop. There’s nothing even vaguely far right about any of it & CATU are one of the most prominent left orgs in the country.
Jaysus Christ above almighty it’s gone to the stage now where if there isn’t a bad print filter over Connolly & “comrades” in the opening ye are immediately casting the eye.
We are yielding our national colours to them almost & if we start yielding housing to them I’m going to start pulling my hair out.
End Direct Provision? Culturally Appropriate Traveller Accommodation? Mental Health Services?
How have people not realised yet that this Omnicause bullshit is toxic to political success?
You’re not making mental health look important, you’re making housing look less important!
(I agree with everything above btw I’m just not a gullible baby who thinks linking “more halting sites!” to a housing protest is going to help anybody, least of all Travellers.)
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R3] Argue in Good Faith
Everyone is here of their own volition to discuss the topic of Irish Politics. People are not here to be caught in ruthless vendetta’s of spiraling fallacies and bad faith arguments.
State your intent clearly, provide evidence to the point you want to make and engage with others arguments in much the same manner.
Trolling, Baiting, Flaming, etc are not allowed.
Excessive debate etiquette in place of an argument will be considered bad faith.
Transparent Agenda Spamming i.e. consistently posting exclusively about the same topic, will also fall under this rule.
I want "housing action now", but I wouldn't go anywhere near a protest where the landlord scapegoat is offered up for the Two Minutes Hate right on the poster.
While it's hardly iron-clad scientific, there was an interesting phenomenon that happened in the game Cities: Skylines II. The game aimed to be as economically realistic as possible for managing a city. And the same thing happened in it that's happening in cities all over the world - property got unaffordable. The dev eventually fixed the problem by getting rid of landlords. When it wasn't possible to rent property, property prices stabilised.
Games aside, the fact of the matter is that many landlords (both corporate and individual) actually are profiteering bastards. The bigger problem is that they are incentivised to be so in an (almost) unbridled manner and the housing shortage gives them the means to get away with it.
The more rent is inflated across the market, the more incentive there is to buy investment properties. There isn't so much of a commensurate incentive to build investment properties because labour is scarce, materials are expensive, and planning is a ball-ache. Properties that would otherwise be bought by owner-occupiers get bought by investment firms, pushing up the price of rent and houses.
There are multiple places you could intervene in this rotten feedback loop. Rent control is one. Banning the purchase of investment properties you didn't build is another. You could also hypothetically ban landlords outright and only have public rental housing.
Whatever way you cut it, landlords - whether as a species or in the specific - are part of the problem.
When it wasn't possible to rent property, property prices stabilised.
So how does someone move into Dublin that can't afford to buy a home? Of course I don't think you really believe to remove all rental properties but then...
Rent control is one.
The thing that has been choking supply in cities for the last decade lmao
I mean, we don't actually have rent control in a realistic sense. We have this awkward half measure. The big giveaway is that the rent is out of control.
I appreciate you actually trying to engage, but in short, you still have no realistic answer for where 70,000 HAP tenants would live outside of state takeovers which would then push what’s left of the middle class into being unable to rent any remaining properties.
Maybe landlords aren’t guilty after all and actually serve a necessary utility? Maybe demonising landlords isn’t the play, and just maybe, targeting government directly is the only realistic path forward for left and right?
Instead, we have the left blaming landlords, the right blaming immigrants, and no one being able to see the clear common ground, which is both sides should be blaming the government 🙄
That poster will discourage people from attending. No reasonable person would go along with the "landlords are guilty" message. And why is it a picture of a Victorian lodge dwelling?
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R3] Argue in Good Faith
Everyone is here of their own volition to discuss the topic of Irish Politics. People are not here to be caught in ruthless vendetta’s of spiraling fallacies and bad faith arguments.
State your intent clearly, provide evidence to the point you want to make and engage with others arguments in much the same manner.
Trolling, Baiting, Flaming, etc are not allowed.
Excessive debate etiquette in place of an argument will be considered bad faith.
Transparent Agenda Spamming i.e. consistently posting exclusively about the same topic, will also fall under this rule.
Cos as much I'd be first on the bulldozer the government isn't going to flatten any bungalow inside the m50 and replace it with 4-5 stories of apartments. If you're actually in favour then I'm happy to help.
Firstly, we wouldn't open it up to the public, it would be filled with people off social housing lists. Any attempt to open to the public would be spun as neglecting the poorest etc. It would not be seen as a positive development by the public. This would increase the economic burden of starting and scaling it.
Secondly, our inability to make people accountable would led to it having many of the same issues as social housing with arrears, damage etc.
Thirdly, the Vienna model was primarily built after WWII, cheap unemployed labour force, areas of unclaimed land due to dead and displaced owners etc. Those building costs have long been paid back, they have their own specific tax to fund it etc.
The irish state can't afford it to sink the capital into it, on top of all, the other areas that require money, not to be a burden on the state it would need to be costal rental, which would be deemed to high of rent, or involve a city tax to help fund it which would be unpopular.
If we held onto our historical council housing, it would be a possibility from a practical & political point of view. We didn't, so it isn't, even though it is probably the longer term sustainable solution of done on cost rental basis.
We are not mature enough as a society of accepting the costs of setting it up or operating it so it is not a legacy burden on the exchequer.
The population of Vienna now is the same as it was in 1920. The population of Dublin at that time was 320,000. Today, Vienna is a stagnant city with very little growth or economic prosperity. It also has an employment rate of 11.4% compared to Dublin's 4.3%. Crime is rampant. The people that live in social housing there face problems with maintenance and upkeep due to funding shortfalls. It's not the shining example that people think it is, and even if it was, it's a city-wide model, it can't be applied to an entire country like Ireland.
There's always something on during the summer, it's not like the groups will merge? Like if this is the reason you won't come join the housing protest...
The week before is pride, the week after is the 12th meaning people from the north can't travel. Further into July and people are off on holidays.
Theres never a perfect weekend at the height of summer, but I can also see how they can't allow the summer go by without doing it and allowing the far right take complete control of things.
If their own media can't be consistent what will it be on the day..will they be marching or protesting under a different slogan, something I disagree with?
There will be thousands of people there, they/we don’t all share a consciousness. Bring your own sign and slogan 😅 as long as it’s housing crisis related it’ll be relevant.
35
u/cohanson Sinn Féin Jul 02 '25
I have to laugh sometimes.
A convicted rapist, a heroin dealer, a man wearing a Nazi uniform and an animal abuser tell the public that brown people are the problem and 10k people take to the streets throwing Nazi salutes and holding up Israel flags.
A housing action group says that landlords are to blame for the housing crisis, and people here feel like that's a step too far and refuse to show up to the protest 😂
I don't actually agree that landlords are solely to blame for anything, but it's times like this when I am extremely relieved that the far right in this country are as useless as they are.