Housing

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Housing

1 | 2 | 3

Geektastic

18010 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8468

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1839882 6-Aug-2017 14:43

Rikkitic:

Wiggum:

I guess that would mean I would have to sell up the bach. It stands empty most of the year.

Batches and second homes specifically excluded. This is about properties being kept empty for investment or other speculative purposes.

I've not met many property investors who would deliberately keep a property empty unless it was shortly to be redeveloped. Void periods cost money!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1839927 6-Aug-2017 15:14

Not so in my experience. Many developers sit on properties for years waiting for the right moment to move forward. Large-scale investors hold onto properties for capital gains. They don't want the hassle of renting which only pays peanuts by their standards. It is much less trouble to keep the property empty until it is time to unload. This has been a common issue in cities like London (which is how squatting came about) and on the Continent. I doubt it is much different in Auckland. There will be plenty of empty structures suitable for temporary housing, which can sometimes extend for years. This does not deprive the owners of the property of their right to make legitimate use of it. When they are ready to develop or sell, the tenants can be evicted in a reasonable time frame. It has worked elsewhere.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1840008 6-Aug-2017 16:49

Rikkitic:

Many developers sit on properties for years waiting for the right moment to move forward. Large-scale investors hold onto properties for capital gains. They don't want the hassle of renting which only pays peanuts by their standards. It is much less trouble to keep the property empty until it is time to unload. This has been a common issue in cities like London (which is how squatting came about) and on the Continent. I doubt it is much different in Auckland. There will be plenty of empty structures suitable for temporary housing, which can sometimes extend for years. This does not deprive the owners of the property of their right to make legitimate use of it. When they are ready to develop or sell, the tenants can be evicted in a reasonable time frame. It has worked elsewhere.

It all depends if the investor own the property outright, or not. If there is a mortgage attached to the investment property, it will make very little economic sense to leave it standing empty.

Rikkitic:

Batches and second homes specifically excluded. This is about properties being kept empty for investment or other speculative purposes.

Well then that would create a loophole, and investors would simply say that the property is a bach.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#1840077 6-Aug-2017 17:56

Wiggum:

It all depends if the investor own the property outright, or not. If there is a mortgage attached to the investment property, it will make very little economic sense to leave it standing empty.

Whether it makes sense or not, there are properties that are empty. Otherwise there would be no plan to put people into them.

Wiggum:

Well then that would create a loophole, and investors would simply say that the property is a bach.

This can easily be checked, though it shouldn't be necessary since property investors are conservative types who respect the law so won't be looking for loopholes.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#1840299 7-Aug-2017 00:11

In some parts of Auckland, average properties were going up in value over $100K per year, which is over $2000 per week. The same property would be lucky to get more than $500 per week in rent. Also it is difficult to sell a property with tenants in it, and you have to give them min 42 days notice from an unconditional sale contract being signed. (no use if the buyer has the money available, but wants to move in sooner) And tenants don't like renting houses that will or could be put up for sale soon.

Also what if an investor offers a property for rent, but at a very expensive rent for that property. With the intention that no tenants will actually apply to rent it, as a means of getting around any "must rent" laws? And if any tenants do apply to rent it, the landlord could just say that they weren't successful in their application to rent the property.

But again, it all comes back to not enough houses getting built due to stupid laws and regulations. If house prices were static or only very slowly rising, it would be very hard to make money from capital gains just from buying and holding a property. You would have to redevelop or improve the property to make a reasonable capital gain.

1 | 2 | 3