Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rose's avatar

Excellent article, very thought provoking and incisive. You are entirely correct on two points, I see this now from the article and I think very few people have spotted this - tenants would be better of with a 100% secure tenancy of fixed at 6/8/10 years rather than the current indefinite but, as you say, insecure tenancy model. You are also correct when you say a stock of PRS must remain. Its flexibility suits some tenants, plus the State should not waste money providing accommodation to those who can well afford to rent if that is what they want to do.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts