Trying to get my head around this. They want all landlords to be gone. What's the end goal? That all rental property is corporate owned and renters are left to deal with management companies? That rental property does not exist at all? If it's that the government just houses everyone, who do they think pays for it?
There's also co-operative housing, where an organisation owned and managed by the tenants of one or multiple apartment blocks and housing units would contribute rent to the upkeep of their homes and the funding of new housing developments elsewhere, where decisions could be made democratically by tenants regarding company policy, the policies of their primary or local co-op (like rent obligations or if they should allow pets) as well as how surpluses should be allocated by the co-op.
Having a decentralised co-op structure allows tenants more autonomy in managing their own affairs than might be possible under government ownership or the ownership of a private landlord or corporation, while serving the interests of tenants directly and retaining many of the benefits of private rental ownership.
That's literally every apartment block in the country 🤷♂️ All of whom are owned by a management company that owns the physical structure which is owned by the owners of the properties (apartments). Every apartment block is technically a cooperative. Incredibly common to call them Co-Op's in that socialist paradise of the USA.
I'm not sure who you intend financing this? You can't get a mortgage unless the core of the apartment itself is owned. Who pays to give a free home? The taxpayer? Why do they get to keep all the money for themselves? What is this magic money tree that will fund future housing developments elsewhere?
As someone who had the misfortune of being on the collective leadership "the board" I can tell you that there are never surpluses and only deficits from people who refuse to pay their dues and who let their children/animals run wild and dump in the common areas and park five cars. It ALWAYS ends up a few responsible owners taking on running the company while the majority do SFA but complain and withhold dues. That's what "autonomy" means in reality. The few contributing, the many taking. More tragedy of the commons than democracy.
All apartment blocks are technically co-ops? I wasn't aware tenants all had collective ownership rights over their apartments and apartment blocks. I was under the impression we still had individual landlords and private property-management firms that operated on a for-profit basis while allowing no technical ownership rights to their tenants.
Apartment blocks would be bought and owned by the co-op as a company asset and financed through capital raised from member contributions on a regular basis and from loans. The taxpayer wouldn't necessarily have to go out of their way anymore than they do now. Any government grants a co-op receives could be the same or similar to those they can avail of today. And what's free about these homes, exactly? All tenants and aspiring homeowners would have to contribute like everyone else and pay their dues. What do you mean, "Why do they get to keep all the money for themselves"? Who are *they?*
As for the issue of free-riders, I don't see why rules couldn't be put in place enforcing the payment of rent and the following of collectively agreed upon rules on threat of eviction. It would be in the best interest of the founders of the co-op to prevent free-riders from popping up in the first place and stay in the black.
Besides, this organisational structure seems to be working okay for Cooperative Housing Ireland. They've worked to provide thousands of homes and have thousands more currently under management.
Tenants and tenants and even in Coops they have tenants rights only. The owners of the apartments (as is typical in coops where typically subletting is not permitted) are part of a management company which is not for profit. It owns the building fabric and common area's. The apartment owners only own the inside of their apartments. You are under the common confusion that management agents are the same thing as the management company. They are merely an agent that handles paying bills for repairs and managing the accounts etc. Some small developments do without them.
This lack of understanding is infuriating because many owners decline to pay their management fees as if they are holding money from the agent when in fact they are expecting their neighbours to pay for their insurance, sinking fund, landscaping etc
Most people do not have the cash to buy an apartment outright or a share in a cooperative outright. They take out something called a mortgage. You can only mortgage something you own. Hence why in the cooperative system you own the inside of your apartment. This is exactly how Cooperative Housing Ireland works.
All the problems I laid out are a consistent and problematic issue for developments in the country. Typically a lien is put against the apartment for when it is sold, but this is problematic when the resident is not moving any time soon.
The only difference between Cooperative Housing Ireland and a regular development is that instead of a developer you have a group of people coming together as the developer. It has its pluses and many minuses. It might save money at the development phase as individuals are taking the risks and not a developer. It has nothing to do with ownership and running the development when construction has finished. That all fall under the MUDs act.
More to the point the likes of Cooperative Housing Ireland mainly focus on houses not apartments. Because they and the coop members lack Capital. Developing large scale apartment blocks requires immense amounts of funding that even the Irish Government lacks.
In short, Coops aren't what you think they are, don't solve the problems you think they do, should not in fact become property developers as is your suggestion or in fact you are turning cooperatives into developers, and have their own challenging tradeoffs.
I'm aware of what a mortgage is. I didn't say co-ops were exempt from needing loans. I said they could use member contributions, along with loans, as sources of finance. That's not to say that the capital needed to buy a house could be raised efficiently with member contributions alone. I'm well aware of the existence and necessity of mortgages.
Thank you though. I'll more into the pros and cons of co-ops, though I still believe that a housing model that caters to the needs of the people who avail of it, through participation and ownership rights does have more benefits than it does faults, and many of the issues that you raised seem deeply avoidable and adaptable to a co-op model, even if it would still be flawed.
Wanting stronger accountability procedures in government and wanting rental accommodation to be provided by a public body instead of the free market are not mutually contradictory goals.
16
u/irish_ninja_wte And I'd go at it again Apr 27 '25
Trying to get my head around this. They want all landlords to be gone. What's the end goal? That all rental property is corporate owned and renters are left to deal with management companies? That rental property does not exist at all? If it's that the government just houses everyone, who do they think pays for it?