Berlin's government legislates against Airbnb

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

munchkin_utd

LiamoSail wrote: »

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

actually the opposite :

councillor Daithí Doolan, who is the chairman of the Dublin City Council’s housing committee, claimed the issue was contributing to high rents and a lack of suitable accommodation in the city.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/airbnb-insists-home-hosting-is-not-taking-housing-off-market-1.2584950

LiamoSail

munchkin_utd wrote: »

actually the opposite :


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/airbnb-insists-home-hosting-is-not-taking-housing-off-market-1.2584950

I'm sure they've contradicted themselves so

seamus

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?

The purpose of planning is to ensure that the housing stock and related facilities are appropriate for the area in which they're located and meet the needs of the community - i.e. the permanent residents and businesses located there.

If you have a situation where housing built for permanent residence is being repurposed for holiday and other short-term rentals, you end up with a fundamental shift in the dynamics of the community, which may be detrimental to those currently living there.

For example, let's say a developer builds 100 units somewhere in South Dublin. These are all bought by individuals who then proceed to let them on Airbnb.

Would you be inclined to say, "yeah sure that's grand. It's their property, they can do what they want"?

Graham

seamus wrote: »

If you have a situation where housing built for permanent residence is being repurposed for holiday and other short-term rentals, you end up with a fundamental shift in the dynamics of the community, which may be detrimental to those currently living there.

I'd suggest it's not just the dynamics of the community that shift, the dynamics of the market must equally shift.

The vastly higher yields on buy-to-Air or even rent-to-Air accommodation have to be putting upward pressure on property prices in any areas popular as short-term holiday lets. In a market that is already supply constrained, it's a double whammy.

At what stage do we realise this repurposing of residential accommodation is not a 'sharing economy', it's a siphoning economy?

Hollister11

This isn't the end of story imo.

Airbnb have enough money behind them to challenge the bill of they wish to. I don't know how big the Berlin market is over there, but it'd probably big enough.

Graham

Hollister11 wrote: »

This isn't the end of story imo.

Airbnb have enough money behind them to challenge the bill of they wish to. I don't know how big the Berlin market is over there, but it'd probably big enough.

It is perhaps telling of the mood (and the reality) in Berlin that the AirBnB response avoids any mention of long-term accommodation that has been repurposed exclusively for short-term holiday lets.

Emphasis mine:

Going forward, we want to work with everyone in Berlin on some clear, fair rules that allow people to share their homes - whether a spare room or the entire place when the host is out of town. Both help make efficient use of space and boost economic opportunities for local residents and their communities.

Mrs OBumble

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.

So there is no difference between B & Bs and renting a room with AirBnB?

Idbatterim

Would you be inclined to say, "yeah sure that's grand. It's their property, they can do what they want"?

probably if there wasnt a housing crisis...

Maireadio

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

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.

Berlin always was a hugely popular weekend trip destination, even before Airbnb. It will make little difference.

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

Apples and Oranges argument.

Not at all. You said:

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

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

So there is no difference between B & Bs and renting a room with AirBnB?

No.


Except that AirBnB also makes it easier for me to find a self-contained apartment.