AirBnB Megathread - ALL A&P related Airbnb discussion here please

FA Hayek

Robineen wrote: »

The "big, bad corporation" stuff is sophomoric. AirBnb is a corporation, for gawd's sake. :pac: Nothing wrong with liking AirBnb but please don't paint it as some noble pursuit for property owners to use it for their properties. Big hotel chain, or small business owner, it's about money for both parties.

Airbnb and others like them like Uber, Airtasker etc. are embracing the peer to peer economy, connecting individual through technology. The genie is out of the bottle and no matter how many old, grey bureaucrats tut tut at the idea, eventually it will become the norm. It is still a rough new industry with some odd teething issue. One has to think why people find it so popular. Its a classic case of supply and demand. Both landlords and tourists benefit, there are not that many downsides to be honest.

Sure, sure, some people do like that. For me that sounds very unappealing to spend my holidays that way. Ewwww, paying to engage in small talk? I don't even like to that for free! But I suspect that isn't a big draw of Airbnb anyway, most people go for the cheapness of it and location of some of the properties. I don't get the whole soulless hotel room thing though. If it's comfortable and spacious and where I want it to be, that's what I want, plus food is handed to me for breakfast and a swimming pool to bob around usually provided. People are happy to pay extra for that stuff that is often missing from self-catering rentals. Anyhoo, a matter of personal preference so not too relevant.

Yes, if people want to pay extra for a hotel room, with room service, spa, swimming pool and gym, then fine. There will always be a market for that. However, many people want to explore the city and environment and not be stuck in a hotel room. I found that when I went somewhere we spent hardly anytime in the hotel as we were out and about exploring.

Airbnb has the choice as well, just look at the reviews of the place and you can see how engaging the host is. Sometime people will just look for a room to crash for a few nights, other times they will want a more engaging experience. However, at the end of the day its about the choice of the individual, not some planning busy body to chose for us what type of accommodation we want.

Well, planning permission will soon be required to rent on Airbnb, I think, and I can envisage it not being granted in residential buildings or densely packed separate houses most of time. This is only right. Like said, I would hate to live adjacent to an Airbnb property. So much so that if I suspected it was in breach of regulations, I'd likely report it as I'd like to feel comfortable in my own home and building. And, yes, I would also hate to live next to a problem tenant. You can dislike both.

Let me ask you this, would you prefer to live near a house/unit that is rented on Airbnb, or a halting site or next to someone in social housing who exhibits anti-social behaviour. As we have seen time and again, it is next to impossible to evict some of these people, where by Airbnb take this issue seriously. Another example of the private sector being better to sort out these issues then the public sector.

Look, I do understand concerns and issues with Airbnb. As I said, there are teething issues that can be sorted. However, what we have seen here from our elected dear leaders is just primal reactionary guff. Telling the hundred or thousands of people to go through the planning process is just in theory at least is a sneaky way to ban it, in theory. The same was tried with Uber in places like Canada and Australia. Eventually, the government in the latter legalised both Uber and Airbnb as they recognise, its better to put in some guidelines and protocols then just put the head in the sand and point to arcane planning laws meant for the last century when no one knew what peer to peer even meant.

People will continue to use Airbnb and landlords will continue to rent out places to tourists on a short term basis.

Erm, other countries are way ahead of us in restricting AirBnb. A tad patronising to chalk this down to lack of comprehension too, no?

True, yet is Ireland supposed to be a technology hub yet we have government policy that advocates 19th century thinking here. I would rather a wider open discussion, where best practice can be looked at and genuine concerns addressed, not some school marm dictating what free people can and cannot do.

KyussBeeshop

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yes, god forbid individuals in a free society do not bow down to some state funded quango in an effort to run our lives for us.

You can't pick and choose the laws you follow. Long-term AirBnB rentals are illegal, unless you get planning permission.

Landlords are not free to ignore the law here, and they shouldn't be encouraged to just because a tiny minority of people think that law is unfair.

If people think they can just continue to ignore the planning laws, then - like the 'Freeman on the Land' types - that's not going to end well for them.

FA Hayek

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

You can't pick and choose the laws you follow. Long-term AirBnB rentals are illegal, unless you get planning permission.

Landlords are not free to ignore the law here, and they shouldn't be encouraged to just because a tiny minority of people think that law is unfair.

If people think they can just continue to ignore the planning laws, then - like the 'Freeman on the Land' types - that's not going to end well for them.

The law is behind technology in this case and it will be changed in due course to be kept up to the modern way of life. Ireland can either be in front of history or on the wrong side of history.

There is plenty of precedent here. Besides, I would like to see if this 'law' (if you can call it that) will be enforced. We also have a blasphemy law but its never enforced.

KyussBeeshop

The law already is enforced, look at the court case over the place being AirBnB'd in Temple Bar. The precedent has indeed been set - long-term AirBnB rentals are illegal without planning permission.

This is really starting to verge on Freeman on the Land type territory, in thinking the law can be ignored.
This is a real law, with real precedent. This law is being enforced. The current government has explicitly stated that it stands behind this law, and that long-term AirBnB rentals need planning permission. The current government has backed this up, and shows no signs of changing the law.

That's pretty much the end of the story there.

Robineen

FA Hayek wrote: »

Its a classic case of supply and demand. Both landlords and tourists benefit, there are not that many downsides to be honest.

For landlords and tourists. They are not the only consideration here.

Anyway, as another poster said, the regulations most certainly are enforceable in this area. You are free to think otherwise by citing one unenforceable law whilst ignoring the many which can be enforced. Up to you. I'm just happy permanent residents won't be ridden roughshod over. The needs of many should never be ignored for the wants of the few.

KyussBeeshop

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The law already is enforced, look at the court case over the place being AirBnB'd in Temple Bar. The precedent has indeed been set - long-term AirBnB rentals are illegal without planning permission.

This is really starting to verge on Freeman on the Land type territory, in thinking the law can be ignored.
This is a real law, with real precedent. This law is being enforced. The current government has explicitly stated that it stands behind this law, and that long-term AirBnB rentals need planning permission. The current government has backed this up, and shows no signs of changing the law.

That's pretty much the end of the story there.

There are thousands of Airbnb in the country now, how many cases are before the courts for lack of planning. A tiny percentage if any.

Robineen

Kylee Millions Badminton wrote: »

There are thousands of Airbnb in the country now, how many cases are before the courts for lack of planning. A tiny percentage if any.

The planning regs are new. Give it time. Ones in rural tourist areas might get away with it but in densely populated city centre areas, which are also popular, I wouldn't count on it at all. And once more and more cases are publicised, that will be a deterrent.

Robineen

Robineen wrote: »

The planning regs are new. Give it time.

No, permenant letting on Airbnb has always been against planning regulations for places with residential planning.

Robineen

Kylee Millions Badminton wrote: »

No, permenant letting on Airbnb has always been against planning regulations for places with residential planning.

Well, as said, there is precedent now, and LLs letting out their properties on a continuous basis seems to be gaining popularity fast. I can envisage there being more and more issues with this in densely populated areas and I think many people wouldn't hesitate to report an adjacent property if it is causing disruption. I think people might even report in anticipation of disruption instead of waiting for it to happen. I'd be very concerned at living next to an Airbnb apartment. Suddenly not seeing the same faces every day.

FA Hayek

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

The law already is enforced, look at the court case over the place being AirBnB'd in Temple Bar. The precedent has indeed been set - long-term AirBnB rentals are illegal without planning permission.

This is really starting to verge on Freeman on the Land type territory, in thinking the law can be ignored.
This is a real law, with real precedent. This law is being enforced. The current government has explicitly stated that it stands behind this law, and that long-term AirBnB rentals need planning permission. The current government has backed this up, and shows no signs of changing the law.

That's pretty much the end of the story there.

The same was said about Uber in many cities. In Sydney for example, it was illegal to offer car sharing or a car ride service if you did not have a taxi license. There were the odd inspections and some drivers were fined, which made their way into the press. There was fierce lobbying by some Taxi companies as they stood to loose hundreds of millions. Think about that, big business lobbying government to maintain their monopoly on a market. Surely anyone on the left would like to see them get a kick in the balls? No?

What did Uber do? They offered to pay the legal fees and fines on behalf of the drivers. There was just too much demand there for the service by the public, much to the chagrin of the big Taxi companies themselves who were multi million dollar businesses. The government realised that they were putting their finger in the dam so to speak.

Roll on 2016 and low and behold, the state government of NSW and Uber made a deal. Legalised Uber rides in exchange for tax proceeds for the state government. Win-win for everyone apart from the taxi companies who wanted to maintain their monopoly.

You say that long term airbnb rentals are illegal, yet anyone here can book one in Ireland. There a couple of thousand airbnb rentals right now in Ireland. As, I said the concept has taken hold in the publics mind, the technology is there and we can see that there is a public need for this sort of short term rental where you don't have to go through reams of red tape to rent out a room or an apartment.

There are two choices, the government can waste years trying a whack a mole approach, trying to make examples out of some landlords. However, this will be futile in the long run as both property owners and visitors will demand a service. Watch if they really nasty, Airbnb spots will dry up and tourists along with it. They won't be long changing their mind to get visitors back. They are better of amending legislation to account for the new reality like many other cities and embracing the peer to peer economy of this century.

As an aside, does it surprise anyone when a new business models enters the fray that the first thing the old established faces do, is run to the state and lobby for more regulation and red tape in order to stop competition? Didn't they do this with food trucks in Dublin?

FA Hayek

Robineen wrote: »

For landlords and tourists. They are not the only consideration here.

Anyway, as another poster said, the regulations most certainly are enforceable in this area. You are free to think otherwise by citing one unenforceable law whilst ignoring the many which can be enforced. Up to you. I'm just happy permanent residents won't be ridden roughshod over. The needs of many should never be ignored for the wants of the few.

As I said, there are issues that need to be addressed, but this can only happen within a new framework, not old planning laws where hotels and B&B's get to call the shots, effectively trying to shut the industry down.

No one would bat an eye lid to apply for planning permission if the process was straight forward, easy, transparent, fast and without cost. If it cost 50 euro or so just to get a simple bit of paperwork, fine. 99% of Airbnb landlords would be OK with this.

What it actually means is that the use of planning laws and red tape is a proxy to shut down a business model that is a threat to the established trade. Does anyone know how much it would cost to be all legit this way, to dot the i's, cross the t's?

Probably the guts of 10 grand. If the cost of entering a new market is 10k then surprise surprise, there won't be many takers. Of course this cost is passed onto the end user of the product, namely tourists. Big hotels chains will be laughing and will continue to charge 200-400 a night in Dublin.

Robineen

FA Hayek wrote: »

As I said, there are issues that need to be addressed, but this can only happen within a new framework, not old planning laws where hotels and B&B's get to call the shots, effectively trying to shut the industry down.

No one would bat an eye lid to apply for planning permission if the process was straight forward, easy, transparent, fast and without cost. If it cost 50 euro or so just to get a simple bit of paperwork, fine. 99% of Airbnb landlords would be OK with this.

What it actually means is that the use of planning laws and red tape is a proxy to shut down a business model that is a threat to the established trade. Does anyone know how much it would cost to be all legit this way, to dot the i's, cross the t's?

Probably the guts of 10 grand. If the cost of entering a new market is 10k then surprise surprise, there won't be many takers. Of course this cost is passed onto the end user of the product, namely tourists. Big hotels chains will be laughing and will continue to charge 200-400 a night in Dublin.

I'm not hearing any consideration for permanent residents in any of your posts. It's most odd. I don't think it will just a case of 'apply for planning permission, get planning permission' even if it's costly. I can see it being denied in many cases because it will be recognised that the permission is sought in a building where it is not suitable. The management company of one Dublin apartment block has already banned long-term AirBnb letting.

Oh and if you can't find non-Airbnb accommodation in Dublin CC for less than €200 a night, you're doing it wrong.

Robineen

Robineen wrote: »

I'm not hearing any consideration for permanent residents in any of your posts. It's most odd. I don't think it will just a case of 'apply for planning permission, get planning permission' even if it's costly. I can see it being denied in many cases because it will be recognised that the permission is sought in a building where it is not suitable. The management company of one Dublin apartment block has already banned long-term AirBnb letting.

Oh and if you can't find accommodation in Dublin CC for less than €200 a night, you're doing it wrong.

Banning airbnb and going after people letting on airbnb won't stop short term lettings happening.

Its already been discussed on how the ban on airbnb in Berlin has lead to short term lettings continuing through other channels.

Robineen

Kylee Millions Badminton wrote: »

Banning airbnb and going after people letting on airbnb won't stop short term lettings happening.

Its already been discussed on how the ban on airbnb in Berlin has lead to short term lettings continuing through other channels.

If that's the case, why resistance to the regulations? I suspect it's because AirBnb makes it very easy. I know of someone who had been renting her Irish holiday home via other channels for twenty years and has now switched to Airbnb. Since doing so, her bookings have quadrupled. More than quadrupled, actually. The visibility of Airbnb brings in the business. More underground channels won't do as well, and for them to do as well as Airbnb, they would have to become as visible. And then they come on the radar and become subject to the same regulations. And then we are back to where we started. And I suspect people know this and try to suggest that there are other ways to be as successful in short-term letting without AirBnb in the hopes that criticism of it will go away.

And I'm not calling for a complete ban. Had it continued to be used the way it was originially intended, it probably would have just been left alone.

Graham

Kylee Millions Badminton wrote: »

Banning airbnb and going after people letting on airbnb won't stop short term lettings happening.

Its already been discussed on how the ban on airbnb in Berlin has lead to short term lettings continuing through other channels.

Of course it won't stop, there's alway going to be a minority trying to skirt around any legislation. It will significantly curtail it.

So we live in an estate that has 200 houses and 20 apartments. We are house no. 15. The occupiers in apt. no 15 are Airbnb hosts.

At least every 2 days we are getting people knocking on our door, mistakenly thinking we are Airbnb hosts. We knocked on Apt. 15, and asked them to be more specific with the directions. They said they would, but it is still constantly happening. Our neighbours have even rang us while we were in work saying that there were confused visitors lingering outside our house and peering in our windows.

Any ideas on how to resolve this? Thanks.

newacc2015

Robineen wrote: »

Well, planning permission will soon be required to rent on Airbnb, I think, and I can envisage it not being granted in residential buildings or densely packed separate houses most of time. This is only right. Like said, I would hate to live adjacent to an Airbnb property. So much so that if I suspected it was in breach of regulations, I'd likely report it as I'd like to feel comfortable in my own home and building. And, yes, I would also hate to live next to a problem tenant. You can dislike both.

You have an issue with an Airbnb being in a "residential area" but not a hotel operating in the same area? It is kinda double standard. DCC has allowed B&Bs to open in quiet leafy estates, but you dont think it is acceptable for an Airbnb to open in the same area. If we are going to ban Airbnbs in residential areas let's start banning B&Bs, hotels etc too. Lets not pretend an Airbnb opening on a highly commerical and noisy area like Temple Bar or Dame St is destroying the fabric of the neighbourhood.

You dont like living next store to problem tenants, but you aren't asking for more reform legislation to deal with them are you...

You are probably leaving next store to an Airbnb and you dont know it

Robineen wrote: »

Erm, other countries are way ahead of us in restricting AirBnb. A tad patronising to chalk this down to lack of comprehension too, no?

You mean cities like Berlin who are failing to build enough social housing, so are blaming Airbnb for their housing problems and not the state who is building a fraction of the housing needed. Sounds familiar?

afkasurfjunkie

Put a sign on ur door saying where apt is.
A humorous one.
It might go viral even.

FA Hayek

Robineen wrote: »

I'm not hearing any consideration for permanent residents in any of your posts. It's most odd. I don't think it will just a case of 'apply for planning permission, get planning permission' even if it's costly. I can see it being denied in many cases because it will be recognised that the permission is sought in a building where it is not suitable. The management company of one Dublin apartment block has already banned long-term AirBnb letting.

Oh and if you can't find non-Airbnb accommodation in Dublin CC for less than €200 a night, you're doing it wrong.

I already admit that there are teething issues in some areas but these can be resolved with consultation between relevant stakeholders, i.e. Airbnb, landlords and permanent residents.

Problem landlords can be dealt with given the right tools, but the current mess that is planning law in Ireland fails miserably and is only used as a tool to strangle the life out of this new business model, protecting the status quo.

jimmycrackcorm

afkasurfjunkie wrote:

Put a sign on ur door saying where apt is. A humorous one. It might go viral even.

Put a sign up in the window saying sorry but we've cancelled your AirBnB. The apartment owner will soon sort it.

Graham

FA Hayek wrote: »

Problem landlords can be dealt with given the right tools, but the current mess that is planning law in Ireland fails miserably and is only used as a tool to strangle the life out of this new business model, protecting the status quo.

You're half right, planning is failing people who live in residential developments that are being re-purposed as holiday lets. As soon as planning departments start to enforce the planning legislation the problem will be largely sorted.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no issue with the original sharing-economy ethos of Airbnb utilising unused rooms in people's homes.

FA Hayek

Graham wrote: »

You're half right, planning is failing people who live in residential developments that are being re-purposed as holiday lets. As soon as planning departments start to enforce the planning legislation the problem will be largely sorted.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no issue with the original sharing-economy ethos of Airbnb utilising unused rooms in people's homes.

Ah, all it needs is more enforcement..... how many times have we heard that before on things like the war on drugs...
Any day now the war on drugs will be won...

With some things, no matter how much enforcement is out into it, it will always remain and peer to peer accommodation and ride sharing are things that will always be here, unless Ireland turns into North Korea.

Graham

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ah, all it needs is more enforcement..... how many times have we heard that before on things like the war on drugs...
Any day now the war on drugs will be won...

With some things, no matter how much enforcement is out into it, it will always remain and peer to peer accommodation and ride sharing are things that will always be here, unless Ireland turns into North Korea.

Very dramatic.

Landlords purchased residential accommodation, it should come as no shock that any other use will require planning permission. Most civilized societities operate similar planning systems.

R.D. aka MR.D

Ugh what a nightmare. We live next door to an air bnb and over the summer we were tortured with people knocking on our door because there was no answer at the airbnb or they were confused. So I strongly believe no matter how detailed the instructions are, you will get people who are too stupid to follow them.

Robineen

newacc2015 wrote: »

You have an issue with an Airbnb being in a "residential area" but not a hotel operating in the same area? It is kinda double standard. DCC has allowed B&Bs to open in quiet leafy estates, but you dont think it is acceptable for an Airbnb to open in the same area.

Well, firstly, there's a big difference in being next to a hotel, and your own apartment building being treated like one. Hotels are build so that you never really hear what's going on in the room next to you, never mind the noise travelling to a building nearby.

Secondly, a key difference between AirBnBs and guesthouses/B&Bs is that for the most part, AirBnB hosts aren't there when guests are staying. The presence of the host in a house will mean any rambunctiousness is dialled down. Any guest being noisy can be turfed out of a guesthouse easily. It's much more hassle for someone next door to an AirBnB rental to do the same.

<mod snip>

Robineen

FA Hayek wrote: »

I already admit that there are teething issues in some areas but these can be resolved with consultation between relevant stakeholders, i.e. Airbnb, landlords and permanent residents.

There is only so much negotiation you can do with permanent residents. They have no stake in it, so aren't going to relinquish their peace and quiet for someone else to make money. Why would they give a crap about that?

athtrasna

Mod note

This is a discussion thread not a soapbox. Posters dominating the thread with to and fro is off putting to others who may wish to contribute. Finally if anyone has an issue with a post please use the report post function rather than retorting on thread.

Thank you

FA Hayek

Robineen wrote: »

There is only so much negotiation you can do with permanent residents. They have no stake in it, so aren't going to relinquish their peace and quiet for someone else to make money. Why would they give a crap about that?

Sounds like typical NIBYism so. Residents of course have a stake in this, just like residents have a say in gang warfare and the war on drugs.

It is in residents best interests to get in front of the issue, not hide behind old planning laws and then get angry when there is no enforcement on the issue.

testaccount123

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sounds like typical NIBYism so.

Would you be happy to move into an apartment sharing walls and floors with a unit being let for stag parties and the like?

Robineen

FA Hayek wrote: »

Sounds like typical NIBYism so.

It is indeed. Sometimes saying "I don't want this next door to me" is A-OK. It's in residents' best interests to ensure they have peaceful living, however they achieve that. Don't be trying to put some noble spin on tourists wanting cheaper accommodation and landlords getting greedy at the expense of others. The needs of the many etc. etc.