Berlin's government legislates against Airbnb

power101

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/01/berlin-authorities-taking-stand-against-airbnb-rental-boom

Owners can no longer rent whole properties to tourists, as officals blame websites including Airbnb, Wimdu and 9Flats for driving up rents

Linkedin Post on how Airbnb has impacted on Dublin rental supply

There are now almost twice as many whole properties for rent in Dublin on Airbnb than there are properties for rent on Daft. Bringing back 2000+ properties into long term rental market won't solve the problem but it'll certainly help! Right now renters are in part, subsidising tourists who use Airbnb...

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/berlin-is-right-to-clamp-down-on-airbnb-london-should-do-the-same-a7034361.html

mirrorwall14

Now that's interesting. wonder will we see other cities start to follow suit

yqtwqxqm

I use it myself.
Great service, and a whole lot less hassle than I would have to go through if I rented my apartments to tenants nowadays.
The way that the government want to control MY investment and take all control away from me has made sure that I will never let them again as long as the current hassles stay.

If they prevent me doing AirBnb too, i'll just sell up and buy an apartment somewhere sunny and let that on AirBnb. And use it whenever I want for myself for holidays too.

In Berlin its a little different to here. That ban I think applies to government subsidised housing only. I may be wrong.

munchkin_utd

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Now that's interesting. wonder will we see other cities start to follow suit

maybe easier than you'd think to implement.

The Berlin move really isn't a new construct but is simply enforcing the planning rules that residential zoned property has to be residential (for residents of the city) and not used as leisure accommodation for tourists.
Ireland could EASILY do the same if there was the will. For gods sake, if the authorities can interpret the planning laws to require planning permission to have a concert in a sports stadium, then they can just as easy (albeit on a bigger scale) interpret the use of accommodation as tourist lodgings being an unauthorised change of use

Munich and New York are also enforcing the unauthorised change of use laws, but not as thoroughly as in Berlin.

Graham

munchkin_utd wrote: »

The Berlin move really isn't a new construct but is simply enforcing the planning rules that residential zoned property has to be residential (for residents of the city) and not used as leisure accommodation for tourists.
Ireland could EASILY do the same if there was the will. For gods sake, if the authorities can interpret the planning laws to require planning permission to have a concert in a sports stadium, then they can just as easy (albeit on a bigger scale) interpret the use of accommodation as tourist lodgings being an unauthorised change of use

I understand the regulation is already in place for this to happen in Ireland. No need for interpretation, just enforcement.

I'd like to see something similar to the Berlin approach. Maybe even a step further, provision of entire apartments/houses restricted to such properties that have planning permission for short-term holiday lets, provision of individual rooms limited to rooms in a principle private residence and subject to a maximum number of room nights per year otherwise planning required.

seamus

The clue is in the name of the company - Airbnb. The properties rented are supposed to be guesthouse-style where the guest takes a room and the owner provides them with breakfast and chat.

Renting out full properties as holiday homes is a bastardisation of the original concept, but Airbnb have been happy to let it develop so long as it makes them money.

As munchkin_utd says above, these is really just a reinforcement of existing rules that are in place for renting out properties, and similarly would be in place in Dublin.

Graham

OSI wrote: »

What are peoples objection to AirBnB exactly? I've seen a lot of negative comment about it, but those comments never seem to come from those at either end of the AirBnB supply chain, just outsiders

I don't have a problem with AirBnB specifically, I do have a problem with the unofficial re-distribution of housing stock as short-term holiday accommodation to the point where its starting to distort an already under pressure housing supply. I also take issue with the potential for buying a house/apartment to live in, only to discover the neighbouring property is permanently occupied with holidaymakers who have an entirely different use-case for the accommodation which often isn't compatible with long-term housing.

Of course the people buying/selling aren't going to have an issue with the business model. Its ability to sidestep the regulations and benefit from the cost-saving of doing so are in the interests of both parties.

yqtwqxqm

OSI wrote: »

What are peoples objection to AirBnB exactly? I've seen a lot of negative comment about it, but those comments never seem to come from those at either end of the AirBnB supply chain, just outsiders

I think its fantastic. I use it both as a host and as a guest.
As a host it allows me more control over my asset. (No PRTB, Rent control) and all the rest of the hassles introduced by various legislation).
Its also extremely easy to see how good or bad a person is before you commit. No hassles ever getting the money either.
See the government here think that my property belongs to THEM and THEY can make me use it as they see fit. I object to that, so strongly that I would sell up rather than let them control it.

As a guest I find it much cheaper than using hotels.
In fact I would be put off going to Berlin now because I would much rather use Airbnb than expensive hotels, and if I cant, i'll just pick somewhere else to go where I can use it.

DivingDuck

Graham wrote: »

I also take issue with the potential for buying a house/apartment to live in, only to discover the neighbouring property is permanently occupied with holidaymakers who have an entirely different use-case for the accommodation which often isn't compatible with long-term housing.

This is also my concern. A person buys or rents a home in a residential area on the understanding they will be sharing space, facilities, and security with other residents. A short-term guest/holidaymaker is not a resident.

Holidaymakers do not have the same requirements and preferences as long-term residents, and, to generalise, don't have the same restrictions or feel bound by the same social mores, either. People behave differently on holiday because they won't have to face the same level of consequences, socially, as they would if they were staying there long-term.

Of course you can get stuck living beside the neighbourhood plank who's been there for fifty years and thinks he owns the street as well as his house, or bad tenants can move into the flat beside yours, but on the balance of it you are more likely to have problems with short-term neighbours because of
a) the differences between holiday behaviour and long-term resident behaviour, and
b) the simple mathematics of getting new people every few days as opposed to every few months or years, which increases your chances of seeing a bad egg.

Personally, I would be very much in favour of seeing the short-term rental loophole closed, especially for multi-home buildings such as apartment blocks. If you want to rent out your 50-miles-to-the-nearest-town cottage on a daily basis, that's entirely your business, but when you're putting ten drunk holidaymakers into a one-bedroom apartment surrounded by other people who have to get up for work tomorrow, you're creating a problem for others which cannot be allowed to continue.

seamus

Graham wrote: »

I don't have a problem with AirBnB specifically, I do have a problem with the unofficial re-distribution of housing stock as short-term holiday accommodation to the point where its starting to distort an already under pressure housing supply.

This.

For example, at the moment there is a 3-bed house in Blackrock up on Airbnb.

According to Daft, the average rental price of a 3-bed in Blackrock is €2,100 a month.

The one on Airbnb is up at €300 a night. So all they have to do is rent it out seven nights in a given month, and they're quids in.

In fact they're more than quids in because they're making €2,100 for 25% occupancy, versus the same amount for 100% occupancy if it's rented out. This is why they do it.

With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

See the government here think that my property belongs to THEM and THEY can make me use it as they see fit. I object to that, so strongly that I would sell up rather than let them control it.

Ultimately I think that would be no bad thing. Multiply that by 1000 and you start to reduce pressure on the housing stock as property is returned to the use for which planning permission was granted. This would start to reduce pressure on property prices and rental prices in an already supply constrained market.

yqtwqxqm

Graham wrote: »

Ultimately I think that would be no bad thing. Multiply that by 1000 and you start to reduce pressure on the housing stock as property is returned to the use for which planning permission was granted. This would start to reduce pressure on property prices and rental prices in an already supply constrained market.

Well it seems to be happening right now, so you might get your wish.
I think it might very well lead to cheaper property prices, but far fewer rental units.
Take my situation. I currently have two rental units almost totally booked up until December. All of these people are from other countries. They are renting my units because they are €70 per night 1 bed units. They have washing machines, Kitchens, TVs etc. Some are couples on their own and some are couples with children. Some are other hosts who I have agreed can have the apartments for free in return for a free stay at theirs for me whenever i want to go on holiday there. All with glowing references.
And all renting from me purely because hotels and BnBs in Ireland have become far too expensive.
Most of these people would not be coming to Ireland to spend their money if the only choice they had was hotels and BnBs here. They would be going to another country and using AirBnB or a country with cheaper hotels etc.

For my side, I get easy to vet guests, payment made very easy and most of all I get people who have earned a reputation and are interested in keeping that reputation, so they treat my property extremely well compared to your average tenant, which allows me to equip the units to an excellent standard and be safe in the knowledge it will be respected.

The alternative is the minefield that is trying to select a good tenant and then have your hands tied by the government regarding how much you can charge or what you can do about it if things go wrong.

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Well it seems to be happening right now, so you might get your wish.
I think it might very well lead to cheaper property prices, but far fewer rental units.
Take my situation. I currently have two rental units almost totally booked up until December.

I'm not sure it would result in far fewer rental units. You've already stated you have removed 2 units from the rental market and repurposed them as short-term holiday accommodation.

Should you decide to sell because of restrictions on such lettings, both units will be returned to the market as either owner occupied units or long-term rental accommodation. Either result is likely to reduce pressure on the current long-term rental stock.

yqtwqxqm

Graham wrote: »

I'm not sure it would result in far fewer rental units. You've already stated you have removed 2 units from the rental market and repurposed them as short-term holiday accommodation.

Should you decide to sell because of restrictions on such lettings, both units will be returned to the market as either owner occupied units or long-term rental accommodation. Either result is likely to reduce pressure on the current long-term rental stock.

Mine are an annex that has been split in two by the previous owner.
If I decided to sell it I would make it into a family home quiet easily by removing a stud wall and a kitchen. I couldnt sell it as two units.
And it would be worth more as a family home anyway.

But thats just my case.

I think at the moment more owner occupiers than investors are buying and more investors are selling up than owner occupiers.
If that continues rentals will become scarcer.

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Mine are an annex that has been split in two by the previous owner.
If I decided to sell it I would make it into a family home quiet easily by removing a stud wall and a kitchen. I couldnt sell it as two units.
And it would be worth more as a family home anyway.

But thats just my case.

I think at the moment more owner occupiers than investors are buying and more investors are selling up than owner occupiers.
If that continues rentals will become scarcer.

Sounds like you are an edge case, that certainly wouldn't be the usual AirBnB type arrangement.

I'd be interested in seeing the stats for investors selling up. Even if that is the case, more owner-occupiers at the lower end of the market (the typical AirBnB apartment rentals) will reduce demand on the remaining rental stock as people move from renting to buying.

yqtwqxqm

Graham wrote: »

Sounds like you are an edge case, that certainly wouldn't be the usual AirBnB type arrangement.

I'd be interested in seeing the stats for investors selling up. Even if that is the case, more owner-occupiers at the lower end of the market (the typical AirBnB apartment rentals) will reduce demand on the remaining rental stock as people move from renting to buying.

There are stats somewhere that ive seen. There was a link in a thread here.

The problem in IOreland with property is that the government are constantly interfering with the market. They just cant help themselves, and they hurt the market every single time, without exception when they do this.

robp

Graham wrote: »

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

See the government here think that my property belongs to THEM and THEY can make me use it as they see fit. I object to that, so strongly that I would sell up rather than let them control it.

Ultimately I think that would be no bad thing. Multiply that by 1000 and you start to reduce pressure on the housing stock as property is returned to the use for which planning permission was granted. This would start to reduce pressure on property prices and rental prices in an already supply constrained market.

Selling of AirBnB or any rental stock to people want to buy their own home would probably actually drive up rent prices as it would reduce the available rental supply.

DivingDuck

robp wrote: »

Selling of AirBnB or any rental stock to people want to buy their own home would probably actually drive up rent prices as it would reduce the valuable rental supply.

I can't understand how sales of current AirBnB properties would have a negative impact on the rental supply? Short-term rentals are as much use to the long-term rental market as hotel rooms (i.e., none).

Either an investor buys it (adding another rental property to the market) or an owner-occupier buys it (removing a renter from the market, or vacating their previously owned property and thus making another house available for sale).

Surely this would only decrease demand and increase supply in the rental market, something which seems to be badly needed?

Graham

robp wrote: »

Selling of AirBnB or any rental stock to people want to buy their own home would probably actually drive up rent prices as it would reduce the available rental supply.

If the property is already an AirBnB, it has already been removed from the rental supply.

Returning such a property to the owner-occupier market would more than likely remove the new owner-occupiers from the property they rent. Net result is +1 unit for the long-term market.

DavyD_83

seamus wrote: »

The clue is in the name of the company - Airbnb. The properties rented are supposed to be guesthouse-style where the guest takes a room and the owner provides them with breakfast and chat.

Renting out full properties as holiday homes is a bastardisation of the original concept, but Airbnb have been happy to let it develop so long as it makes them money.

As munchkin_utd says above, these is really just a reinforcement of existing rules that are in place for renting out properties, and similarly would be in place in Dublin.

I've been using Airbnb as a guest since it started up.
At the beginning it seemed to be aimed at renting spare rooms, but also for people to be able to rent their primary property while they are not using it. eg. when they themselves are on holidays or for people who live in city Mon-Friday for work and then go home at weekends.
The room/bed rental was pitched as a community type setup, sort of a couch-surfing with payment type of thing.
I agree with limiting the amount of places which would be essentially taken out of the rental market by these services, but would like to see some allowance for rental of full primary properties for certain number of days a year (although I know this would be incredibly difficult to police)

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

There are stats somewhere that ive seen. There was a link in a thread here.

The problem in IOreland with property is that the government are constantly interfering with the market. They just cant help themselves, and they hurt the market every single time, without exception when they do this.

I agree that governments shouldn't generally interfere with markets.

In this instance, I'm not sure the government should shoulder too much of the blame. Landlords alone decided to repurpose rental accommodation as short-term holiday lettings, unilaterally removing property from one market and placing it in another.

I can't say I blame the landlords either. Who wouldn't be tempted by the relatively rich pickings of the holiday market. At the same time any landlord would have to be fairly naive to think this will be permitted indefinitely.

Government/local authorities should now begin to enforce the planning legislation that has always been in place.

OSI

OSI wrote: »

What are peoples objection to AirBnB exactly? I've seen a lot of negative comment about it, but those comments never seem to come from those at either end of the AirBnB supply chain, just outsiders

There are 2 problems. The first from the Tourist side. They are taking business from registered and regulated Bed and Breakfast Business'.

The second is from a rental/housing crisis perspective, as outlined above by Seamus.
"For example, at the moment there is a 3-bed house in Blackrock up on Airbnb.
According to Daft, the average rental price of a 3-bed in Blackrock is €2,100 a month.
The one on Airbnb is up at €300 a night. So all they have to do is rent it out seven nights in a given month, and they're quids in.
In fact they're more than quids in because they're making €2,100 for 25% occupancy, versus the same amount for 100% occupancy if it's rented out. This is why they do it.
With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused."

There is another in that some on Welfare payments are supplementing their income by renting rooms to AirBnB, but I don't want to go down the Welfare bashing route!

Graham

DavyD_83 wrote: »

I've been using Airbnb as a guest since it started up.
At the beginning it seemed to be aimed at renting spare rooms, but also for people to be able to rent their primary property while they are not using it. eg. when they themselves are on holidays or for people who live in city Mon-Friday for work and then go home at weekends.
The room/bed rental was pitched as a community type setup, sort of a couch-surfing with payment type of thing.
I agree with limiting the amount of places which would be essentially taken out of the rental market by these services, but would like to see some allowance for rental of full primary properties for certain number of days a year (although I know this would be incredibly difficult to police)

That sounds like a really sensible approach DavyD, renting spare capacity in your home or renting your home while you're away for a couple of weeks gets back to the original 'sharing economy' premise of AirBnB.

godtabh

seamus wrote: »

With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.

Isnt this the crux of the problem? Who should be providing housing stock? LA/Governments or private developers?

If its LA/Governments it is their right to use the stock as they please. If its private developers who sell to private individuals (be it owners or landlords) its up to them to use it as they see fit with in the scope of the planning conditions.

This is taken from Kildare's website

Provided not more than 4 bedrooms are used for guest accommodation and provided that there are not more than 4 persons per room, you do not need planning permission. In this case, the word “house” does not include a building designated for use or used as 2 or more dwellings, or a flat, or apartment.

For me the housing crisis is a problem the government needs to solve and not to be religion on private stock. If it wants to rely on private stock then let the market decide what is fair. The flip side is government interference which has worked out great so far.

Sky King

seamus wrote: »

With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.

What about the people who own the 'residential housing stock'? Don't they get to decide what to do with their own houses?

Graham

godtabh wrote: »

Isnt this the crux of the problem? Who should be providing housing stock? LA/Governments or private developers?

If its LA/Governments it is their right to use the stock as they please. If its private developers who sell to private individuals (be it owners or landlords) its up to them to use it as they see fit with in the scope of the planning conditions.

This is taken from Kildare's website



For me the housing crisis is a problem the government needs to solve and not to be religion on private stock. If it wants to rely on private stock then let the market decide what is fair. The flip side is government interference which has worked out great so far.

The word 'guest' would suggest there is an expectation of an owner-occupier being present. If that the case there would be no loss of housing stock and no distortion of the housing market.

Graham

Sky King wrote: »

What about the people who own the 'residential housing stock'? Don't they get to decide what to do with their own houses?

Of course they do, within the limitations of the planning granted to the residential housing stock.

munchkin_utd

Graham wrote: »

That sounds like a really sensible approach DavyD, renting spare capacity in your home or renting your home while you're away for a couple of weeks gets back to the original 'sharing economy' premise of AirBnB.

just to re-state it, this type of activity is 100% ok in Berlin still.
Theres a difference in having (paying) guests the odd time with removing a residental property completely from the long term rental market.

Individually a small time landlord feels he is doing little harm, but multiply that by 20,000 units like in Berlin, and assume that 2 or 3 can fit in a property on average, then literally 10s of thousands of current or potential Berlin residents and potential tax payers are denied a roof over their heads.

Dublin wouldnt be as bad, but you still could have 10s of thousands of people being denied an apartment or house because a landlord unilaterally decides that he wants to be in the tourist rather than residential rental business.

godtabh

Graham wrote: »

The word 'guest' would suggest there is an expectation of an owner-occupier being present. If that the case there would be no loss of housing stock and no distortion of the housing market.

Then there is the difference between owner occupier and renter.


Some one can rent a room through daft or AirBnB. Some people take this a step further and rent through AirBnB. As long as they pay their fair share I've no issue.

As Seamus pointed out rent through AirBnB has the potential for a much bigger return to the individual and the government. Maybe the higher return should be put back into LA housing stock.

Charles Babbage

This is not a simple matter as it just creates a shortage of short term accommodation when the government is trying to promote tourism etc and over enthusiastic measures will prevent people renting out properties short term and so reduce the supply further. And there are different situations, if some landlord has students until the end of this month, gives the place a good clean and has it on Airbnb for 3 months is this a problem?

Graham

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is not a simple matter as it just creates a shortage of short term accommodation when the government is trying to promote tourism etc and over enthusiastic measures will prevent people renting out properties short term and so reduce the supply further. And there are different situations, if some landlord has students until the end of this month, gives the place a good clean and has it on Airbnb for 3 months is this a problem?

Shortages in short-term holiday accommodation should not be addressed by skirting around planning laws to repurpose long-term rental accommodation at the expense of long-term residents of a city/town.

Academic year student accommodation is a different case, many halls of residence have been let over the summer months for some years now.

Graham

godtabh wrote: »

Then there is the difference between owner occupier and renter..

Punctuation error on my part:

The word 'guest' would suggest there is an expectation of an owner/occupier being present. If that the case there would be no loss of housing stock and no distortion of the housing market.

The occupier being the owner or long-term tenant.

yqtwqxqm

Graham wrote: »

If the property is already an AirBnB, it has already been removed from the rental supply.

Returning such a property to the owner-occupier market would more than likely remove the new owner-occupiers from the property they rent. Net result is +1 unit for the long-term market.

For now.
I know if I got better treatment as a landlord I might look at the landlord route again.

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

For now.
I know if I got better treatment as a landlord I might look at the landlord route again.

Which is understandable, you'll get no argument from me against strengthening some aspects of a landlords position.

yqtwqxqm

I firmly believe that the owner of an asset should be allowed to run that asset as they please.
Let the government create their own rentals and run them as they please if they want to. They shouldnt expect to commandeer someone elses because they dont want to solve their own problems themselves.

DivingDuck

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

I firmly believe that the owner of an asset should be allowed to run that asset as they please.
Let the government create their own rentals and run them as they please if they want to. They shouldnt expect to commandeer someone elses because they dont want to solve their own problems themselves.

There are also planning laws and head leases to consider.

munchkin_utd

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

I firmly believe that the owner of an asset should be allowed to run that asset as they please.
Let the government create their own rentals and run them as they please if they want to. They shouldnt expect to commandeer someone elses because they dont want to solve their own problems themselves.

so if I decide to set up a scrap yard in my front garden then thats grand too is it, because I own the property and can do as I please ?

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

I firmly believe that the owner of an asset should be allowed to run that asset as they please.

So do I when the use of that asset is in line with the law, including the planning laws.

Just as I would have no expectation that I could turn my home into a restaurant, I would similarly have no expectation that I could turn my house into short-term holiday accommodation.

yqtwqxqm

Graham wrote: »

So do I when the use of that asset is in line with the law, including the planning laws.

Just as I would have no expectation that I could turn my home into a restaurant, I would similarly have no expectation that I could turn my house into short-term holiday accommodation.

So what does planning say for each and every AirBnb owner?
Ive had many years experience of planning and getting around it and 99% of the time its very easily done.

The government are happy as long as they get tax. They get more tax from AirBnb hosts than they do from normal landlords. They wont do anything, just as they arent doing anything about the rental crisis at the moment. They are happy to gouge the property investor, knowing full well the cost is going to be passed on to the end user as in all business. They get their pound of flesh and through smoke and mirrors make out that its the property owner thats the problem, when actually its their treatment of the property owner thats actually the problem.

Just as an aside. The next thing thats coming down the line will be Estate agents renting properties from landlords on long term leases eg 5 years, and then in turn subletting to tenants, students accom and airbnbrs etc. They rent it off you and give it back in exactly the same condition as you gave it to them. I and my brothers have all been approached about it several times recently.

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

So what does planning say for each and every AirBnb owner?
Ive had many years experience of planning and getting around it and 99% of the time its very easily done.

I don't doubt it, that's how this situation has been allowed to develop to the point it's distorting the long-term property market.

It's now getting to the stage where government/local authorities should enforce the planning regulations to redress the balance.

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

The next thing thats coming down the line will be Estate agents renting properties from landlords on long term leases eg 5 years, and then in turn subletting to tenants, students accom and airbnbrs etc. They rent it off you and give it back in exactly the same condition as you gave it to them. I and my brothers have all been approached about it several times recently.

I don't doubt that either, all the more reason to start enforcing the planning regulations sooner rather than later when the problem has been amplified and the solution generates even more pain for those involved.

LiamoSail

seamus wrote: »

This.

For example, at the moment there is a 3-bed house in Blackrock up on Airbnb.

According to Daft, the average rental price of a 3-bed in Blackrock is €2,100 a month.

The one on Airbnb is up at €300 a night. So all they have to do is rent it out seven nights in a given month, and they're quids in.

In fact they're more than quids in because they're making €2,100 for 25% occupancy, versus the same amount for 100% occupancy if it's rented out. This is why they do it.

With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.

I fundamentally disagree with this point. It is not the responsibility of private business to solve the housing crisis. The local authority can do as they please with houses they have paid for, but not a house I have paid for.

LL's are leaving the industry in droves on account of how the system is set up on the side of the tenant. Short term lets offer a LL rights that long term lets don't. If you want to encourage LL away from short term letting, address the factors that make long term letting so unattractive, otherwise banning short term lets will only see more LL's leave the industry rather than let LT

godtabh

LiamoSail wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with this point. It is not the responsibility of private business to solve the housing crisis. The local authority can do as they please with houses they have paid for, but not a house I have paid for.

LL's are leaving the industry in droves on account of how the system is set up on the side of the tenant. Short term lets offer a LL rights that long term lets don't. If you want to encourage LL away from short term letting, address the factors that make long term letting so unattractive, otherwise banning short term lets will only see more LL's leave the industry rather than let LT

Given that DCC is one of Ireland's biggest landowners, has a responsibility for delivering homes but doesn't the buck stops with them and other LA.

Graham

LiamoSail wrote: »

I fundamentally disagree with this point. It is not the responsibility of private business to solve the housing crisis. The local authority can do as they please with houses they have paid for, but not a house I have paid for.

Nobody has suggested it is the responsibility of private business.

At the same time, private business cannot unilaterally choose to ignore the provisions of planning legislation.

yqtwqxqm

munchkin_utd wrote: »

so if I decide to set up a scrap yard in my front garden then thats grand too is it, because I own the property and can do as I please ?

Apples and Oranges argument.

If thats where this discussion is going, im out. Good luck with it though

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

There are 2 problems. The first from the Tourist side. They are taking business from registered and regulated Bed and Breakfast Business'.

Who exactly are BnB's registered with and regulated by?

Yes, there is registration with Bord Failte. But many regular BnBs aren't registered, and they can still operate so long as they have planning permission.

And frankly traditional BnB is horrible, and poor value You get use of a bedroom. Maybe a guest sitting room if you're lucky (but guaranteed that it will be uncomfortable). Maybe somewhere to make a cuppa, maybe not. Never a kitchen. Never a washing machine. Usually an iron/ironboard - but usually challenging to use becasue the bedroom isn't that large. Usually inflexible breakfast menu and timing (to suit checking out guests, not holidaying ones).

I'd prefer a self-contained apartment.

godtabh

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Who exactly are BnB's registered with and regulated by?

Yes, there is registration with Bord Failte. But many regular BnBs aren't registered, and they can still operate so long as they have planning permission.

And frankly traditional BnB is horrible, and poor value You get use of a bedroom. Maybe a guest sitting room if you're lucky (but guaranteed that it will be uncomfortable). Maybe somewhere to make a cuppa, maybe not. Never a kitchen. Never a washing machine. Usually an iron/ironboard - but usually challenging to use becasue the bedroom isn't that large. Usually inflexible breakfast menu and timing (to suit checking out guests, not holidaying ones).

I'd prefer a self-contained apartment.

Are you just describing a hotel?

Graham

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Apples and Oranges argument.

If thats where this discussion is going, im out. Good luck with it though

Not really apples and oranges, both scenarios involve "planning and getting around it".

Planning isn't just to stop one property owner inconveniencing another property owner. The bigger picture is planning allows local authorities to ensure/encourage supply of essential elements to a community.

When land is zoned as residential, there is quite reasonably an expectation that it will supply residential accommodation within a community. Property owners shouldn't (and aren't) permitted to decide that it doesn't suit their income requirements and can therefore be arbitrarily rezoned to the detriment of the rest of the community.

Any property owner that has based a business on 'getting around' the planning legislation is going to struggle to justify the position on the basis they've always got away with it previously.

LiamoSail

godtabh wrote: »

Given that DCC is one of Ireland's biggest landowners, has a responsibility for delivering homes but doesn't the buck stops with them and other LA.

Yes, it's up to DCC and LA's. Private home owners bare no responsibility for solving the country's housing crises.

Graham wrote: »

Nobody has suggested it is the responsibility of private business.

At the same time, private business cannot unilaterally choose to ignore the provisions of planning legislation.

It has been suggested private business bare a responsibility, as a primary objection to Airbnb is cited as the removal of stock by private business from the LT to the ST market.

I'm not overly familiar with planning legislation, but as far as I'm aware, DCC have made it clear that Airbnb isn't an issue.

Anyway, I'd have little issue with bypassing planning laws in Dublin to the extent I can get away with it. The only difference between my noncompliance (if it is so) and the compliance of the developer who built my apartments is that the developer paid a FF TD to make his pursuit compliant, I haven't.

Graham

LiamoSail wrote: »

It has been suggested private business bare a responsibility, as a primary objection to Airbnb is cited as the removal of stock by private business from the LT to the ST market.

All property owners bare a responsibility to use their property in accordance with the planning legislation.

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'm not overly familiar with planning legislation, but as far as I'm aware, DCC have made it clear that Airbnb isn't an issue.

As far as I am aware DCC have already declined some planning applications for the provision of short-term rental accommodation.

I agree that DCCs actions so far have been non-existent when it comes to using most properties as short-term holiday accommodation.

LiamoSail wrote: »

Anyway, I'd have little issue with bypassing planning laws in Dublin to the extent I can get away with it.

You and several hundred other operators, hence the problem.

stevedublin

godtabh wrote: »

Are you just describing a hotel?

Hotels rarely have their own kitchen. Purpose-built holiday accommodation with own kitchen/bathroom could be a gap in the market (that airbnb is filling)

LiamoSail

Graham wrote: »

All property owners bare a responsibility to use their property in accordance with the planning legislation.
.

Yes, but not a responsibility for the current housing shortage. I'm not going to look for a quote, but I'm sure I read, probably on here, that DCC had no issue with short term lets, and certainly weren't getting involved. To me that suggests that the planning authority of the city have no issue with current arrangements