How many investment properties is too many?

[Oh_hunnihunni]

There was a referendum held in Berlin recently regarding the nationalisation of megaproperty holdings, which gave support to the idea that private individuals or companies should have limited numbers of residential investment properties. The local political leadership are now formulating legislation to go ahead with that proposal which will compensate landlords, nationalise their holdings, and limit future purchases.

With our current challenges around housing, should there be a limit to the number of residential properties that can be held in private hands? Or should we perhaps use taxation to persuade investors to look at more productive use of their savings?

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...aland.html

[Olive]

There was a referendum held in Berlin recently regarding the nationalisation of megaproperty holdings, which gave support to the idea that private individuals or companies should have limited numbers of residential investment properties. The local political leadership are now formulating legislation to go ahead with that proposal which will compensate landlords, nationalise their holdings, and limit future purchases.

With our current challenges around housing, should there be a limit to the number of residential properties that can be held in private hands? Or should we perhaps use taxation to persuade investors to look at more productive use of their savings......

I think there is merit in the idea, but there would be so many ways of getting around any limitation (trusts, companies) that it would generate a huge avoidance industry benefiting mainly accountants and lawyers.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

From the Stuff article this morning, there could be an assumption that some private property investors are no more than hoarders on a grand scale.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed...properties

And I know of two in our neighbourhood on the Shore who own more than 90 properties, each.

[crafters_corner]

There is something rather 'yuk' about people being able to do this.

Greedy people, buying up property, so that they can charge outrageous rents.

I feel almost jealous.

[TygerTung]

We've got one rental property, it is our first house and we decided to rent it out when we bought a new house to live in.

It is run as a business, and any successful businesses goal is to be competitive.

Therefore we try to ensure the house is a nice house to live in, and is rented out at the lowest possible price.

Therefore we have had 100% occupancy with the same tenant the whole time who doesn't trash the house and pays the rent every fortnight. So everyone wins.

Unfortunately with these new interest on loan rules coming in we will have to raise the rent as otherwise we won't have enough money to buy food.

[Lilith7]

I don't think anyone would object to any couple or individual renting one or two properties, but when someone has several dozen, that's a different story altogether.
Its just unfair when a company or individual can own so many properties while others have no means of ever even owning their own house. it just goes against the grain.
It may be that we have to follow Berlin's example, at least to some extent.

If we have to put a limit on how many properties an individual, trust or company can own then we should do so carefully & make very sure that there aren't any loopholes - get our most wily lawyers to check it first perhaps.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

We've got one rental property, it is our first house and we decided to rent it out when we bought a new house to live in.

It is run as a business, and any successful businesses goal is to be competitive.

Therefore we try to ensure the house is a nice house to live in, and is rented out at the lowest possible price.

Therefore we have had 100% occupancy with the same tenant the whole time who doesn't trash the house and pays the rent every fortnight. So everyone wins.

Unfortunately with these new interest on loan rules coming in we will have to raise the rent as otherwise we won't have enough money to buy food.

Dear friend of mine has been a tenant in the same property for 26 years. She has just been given notice to vacate because the LL is selling up.
Imagine the shock that must be.

[Lilith7]

We've got one rental property, it is our first house and we decided to rent it out when we bought a new house to live in.

It is run as a business, and any successful businesses goal is to be competitive.

Therefore we try to ensure the house is a nice house to live in, and is rented out at the lowest possible price.

Therefore we have had 100% occupancy with the same tenant the whole time who doesn't trash the house and pays the rent every fortnight. So everyone wins.

Unfortunately with these new interest on loan rules coming in we will have to raise the rent as otherwise we won't have enough money to buy food.

Dear friend of mine has been a tenant in the same property for 26 years. She has just been given notice to vacate because the LL is selling up.
Imagine the shock that must be.

That must be absolutely awful - especially now.

[TygerTung]

Dear friend of mine has been a tenant in the same property for 26 years. She has just been given notice to vacate because the LL is selling up.
Imagine the shock that must be.

That must be absolutely awful - especially now.

It shouldn't affect the landlord if she/he has had the property for 26 years as that is plenty of time to pay off the mortgage.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Dear friend of mine has been a tenant in the same property for 26 years. She has just been given notice to vacate because the LL is selling up.
Imagine the shock that must be.

That must be absolutely awful - especially now.

Yup. Raised her son there, and now she has his son. Great Christmas present, eh?

---

That must be absolutely awful - especially now.

It shouldn't affect the landlord if she/he has had the property for 26 years as that is plenty of time to pay off the mortgage.

The owner will profit hugely. His tenant on the other hand is in real trouble.

We need a more even balance of power for tenants. For good tenants especially. After all, this one has paid his mortgage off...

[Lilith7]

That must be absolutely awful - especially now.

Yup. Raised her son there, and now she has his son. Great Christmas present, eh?

---

It shouldn't affect the landlord if she/he has had the property for 26 years as that is plenty of time to pay off the mortgage.

The owner will profit hugely. His tenant on the other hand is in real trouble.

We need a more even balance of power for tenants. For good tenants especially. After all, this one has paid his mortgage off...

Isn't there an organisation which might be able to help her - tenant's protection or whatever their name is, or perhaps CAB? That seems a miserable thing to do to a long term tenant, especially at this time of year.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

No, it is perfectly legal. And being done exactly by the rules. 26 years though is a long time.

On a related note I see Mr Luxon owns seven properties and is set to make 4.3m in extra paper value in today's property market.

How much longer must we wait until some balance is restored?

[nzoomed]

There was a referendum held in Berlin recently regarding the nationalisation of megaproperty holdings, which gave support to the idea that private individuals or companies should have limited numbers of residential investment properties. The local political leadership are now formulating legislation to go ahead with that proposal which will compensate landlords, nationalise their holdings, and limit future purchases.

With our current challenges around housing, should there be a limit to the number of residential properties that can be held in private hands? Or should we perhaps use taxation to persuade investors to look at more productive use of their savings?

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...aland.html

I think limiting people to 1 rental property tax free when selling and then add capital gains tax to sale on all subsequent rentals would be enough to make an impact.
Its the property investors who hold 20 or 30 properties that are really the problem

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I think family occupied home, one holiday home with a residency qualification and one investment property should be the limit for private owners. The rest, including trust owned collections should be subject to some serious tenancy protection frameworks so that exploitation is kept to a minimum, and good landlord behaviour is encouraged if not mandated.

But, alongside that, we need more stringent monitoring of poor tenants who damage and destroy landlords property and the communities they live within. It has to be a more balanced relationship because the number of renters is climbing rapidly, and they deserve better representation from our government. At the moment it seems only Chloe and Paul Eagle are even vaguely interested in genuinely working towards leveling that playing field.

[TygerTung]

I think family occupied home, one holiday home with a residency qualification and one investment property should be the limit for private owners. The rest, including trust owned collections should be subject to some serious tenancy protection frameworks so that exploitation is kept to a minimum, and good landlord behaviour is encouraged if not mandated.

But, alongside that, we need more stringent monitoring of poor tenants who damage and destroy landlords property and the communities they live within. It has to be a more balanced relationship  because the number of renters is climbing rapidly, and they deserve better representation from our government. At the moment it seems only Chloe and Paul Eagle are even vaguely interested in genuinely working towards leveling that playing field.

Maybe we need special durable houses for bad tenants, with plywood walls and vinyl floors so they can't be easily damaged? I mean they wouldn't be as comfortable to live in, but would be more durable for wild parties. And we need wild parties. Especially for the immunised.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

You know something, we should reward good landlords. I have been renting now since coming back to Auckland in 2005. Eight rentals. Four really bad landlords, two fantastic ones, one property manager, and the current corporate.

My experience might be pretty average I suspect.

[Lilith7]

I think family occupied home, one holiday home with a residency qualification and one investment property should be the limit for private owners. The rest, including trust owned collections should be subject to some serious tenancy protection frameworks so that exploitation is kept to a minimum, and good landlord behaviour is encouraged if not mandated.

But, alongside that, we need more stringent monitoring of poor tenants who damage and destroy landlords property and the communities they live within. It has to be a more balanced relationship  because the number of renters is climbing rapidly, and they deserve better representation from our government. At the moment it seems only Chloe and Paul Eagle are even vaguely interested in genuinely working towards leveling that playing field.

That  makes good sense. I'd really like to think that things which make good sense actually get to happen. Now's good.

[Olive]

There was a referendum held in Berlin recently regarding the nationalisation of megaproperty holdings, which gave support to the idea that private individuals or companies should have limited numbers of residential investment properties. The local political leadership are now formulating legislation to go ahead with that proposal which will compensate landlords, nationalise their holdings, and limit future purchases.

With our current challenges around housing, should there be a limit to the number of residential properties that can be held in private hands? Or should we perhaps use taxation to persuade investors to look at more productive use of their savings?

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/...aland.html

Your reference to Berlin has got me thinking. One of the many differences between housing attitudes in Aotearoa and in Germany is that in Germany renting is seen as a perfectly valid and honourable way of living, and renters are not regarded as second class citizens. A consequence of that is that renters are just as community-minded as property owners. Although the rent cap legislation has been repealed there are still rental controls that prevent landlords from profiteering, and tenants enjoy protection against being booted out at short notice.

We lived in Berlin briefly about ten years ago, as sub-tenants in a large apartment block in Prenslauerberg, and I was awestruck by the civic responsibility shown by all of the other tenants. Correct communal recycling was a point of honour, everyone was polite and respectful of one another.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Yes, they have different rules, and different rental property laws too. Much more civilised. But then this is the country that can build quality housing in factories, that take mere days to assemble on site.

Imagine if we could do that here...

[Lilith7]

Most European countries see renting in a very different light, I read somewhere that in, I think Germany, rental properties can sometimes be rented by the same family for several generations.
These days, housing can be printed out apparently. Excellent in some respects but it could put a lot of people out of work, too.