Air BnB [and other platforms] to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are hundreds of properties tied up in AirB&B. Release those back and it does not matter who moves in, rent or purchase. It means that there are 100's of less people looking for a home.

How is this hard to grasp??

This regulation is specifically supposed to move all the properties that went to Airbnb back to long term rentals.

Forcing landlords to exit the market does not help supply. How is that hard to grasp?

GalwayGaillimh

Anyone I know in Galway whose doing Airbnb is ignoring this and business as usual till they are told to stop.
Even a former goverment ministers property is taking bookings past June...
No legislation passed yet...no law in force...so business as usual...

runawaybishop

runawaybishop wrote: »

This regulation is specifically supposed to move all the properties that went to Airbnb back to long term rentals.

Forcing landlords to exit the market does not help supply. How is that hard to grasp?

So they sell the house and someone moves into it. Either A. Their rental becomes available

Or B. They are your strawman couple from a parents house. They're now not bidding on a different property, so other property available to purchase by different buyer and "A" takes over again.

More property on the market means more supply, allowing demand to be met. It's quite simple

Wheres Me Jumper?

GalwayGaillimh wrote: »

Anyone I know in Galway whose doing Airbnb is ignoring this and business as usual till they are told to stop.
Even a former goverment ministers property is taking bookings past June...
No legislation passed yet...no law in force...so business as usual...

i agree this country has more rules & regulations, 95% of which are ignored. politicians pass laws. business people get on with making money.

not that i'm advocating breaking the law...

runawaybishop

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So they sell the house and someone moves into it. Either A. Their rental becomes available

Or B. They are your strawman couple from a parents house. They're now not bidding on a different property, so other property available to purchase by different buyer and "A" takes over again.

More property on the market means more supply, allowing demand to be met. It's quite simple

For something so simple you seem to be struggling to understand.

Rentals have higher density so forcing a landlord to sell or leave it vacant restricts supply further, just like all the other regulations brought in. We need to encourage more landlords to enter the market, not force them out.

It's also unenforceable but the amount of rentals affected was grossly exaggerated so there's that I guess.

Graham

runawaybishop wrote: »

Rentals have higher density so forcing a landlord to sell or leave it vacant restricts supply further, just like all the other regulations brought in. We need to encourage more landlords to enter the market, not force them out.

Current residential density for most of the short term letting properties is zero.

Any residential density is higher then zero.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Current residential density for most of the short term letting properties is zero.

Any residential density is higher then zero.

It's mental. Take 10 houses from airB&B remove say 3 vacents (for sh1ts and giggles)
Net gain to rental/purchase market = +7

7 properties freed up as homes.

mdebets

runawaybishop wrote: »

For something so simple you seem to be struggling to understand.

Rentals have higher density so forcing a landlord to sell or leave it vacant restricts supply further, just like all the other regulations brought in. We need to encourage more landlords to enter the market, not force them out.

It's also unenforceable but the amount of rentals affected was grossly exaggerated so there's that I guess.

Someone renting out on Air B&B is not a Landlord and every property removed from Air B&B is a plus for the community. It's either one additional residential property (rental or owner-occupied makes no difference) or even if it stays empty (what the majority of former Air B&B properties won't) it means no noisy neighbours for a few properties.

1874

mdebets wrote: »

Someone renting out on Air B&B is not a Landlord and every property removed from Air B&B is a plus for the community. It's either one additional residential property (rental or owner-occupied makes no difference) or even if it stays empty (what the majority of former Air B&B properties won't) it means no noisy neighbours for a few properties.

You have to realise, people probably would never have shifted to airbnb if it wasnt so impossible to deal with delinquent tenants, none of the hassles of non paying or anti social tenants which landlords can do little or nothing about.
Also, Ive stayed in airbnbs, no noise or problems, it was an owners home, I dont see why a primary residence should be affected by an airbnb ban.


If people (including tenants) want improvements in the rental market, they should consider supporting regulation that deals with bad tenants, many an owner occupier or even tenanted properties have to deal with anti social tenants that cannot be shifted.

Graham

1874 wrote: »

You have to realise, people probably would never have shifted to airbnb if it wasnt so impossible to deal with delinquent tenants

I'm not sure I'd agree.

Plenty of other countries with assorted regulatory regimes are feeling the negative effects of short-term lettings.

1874

1874 wrote: »

You have to realise, people probably would never have shifted to airbnb if it wasnt so impossible to deal with delinquent tenants, none of the hassles of non paying or anti social tenants which landlords can do little or nothing about.
Also, Ive stayed in airbnbs, no noise or problems, it was an owners home, I dont see why a primary residence should be affected by an airbnb ban.


If people (including tenants) want improvements in the rental market, they should consider supporting regulation that deals with bad tenants, many an owner occupier or even tenanted properties have to deal with anti social tenants that cannot be shifted.

I don’t think primary dwelling that are occupied by the owner are affected by the new regulations. It’s where whole properties are being rented via AirBnB.

1874

Graham wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd agree.

Plenty of other countries with assorted regulatory regimes are feeling the negative effects of short-term lettings.

I agree, but that is elsewhere, Im all for limiting airbnb for properties that could be rented or sold for longterm use,
but I believe Irelands problems lay with the fact that many landlords realised or experienced the hassle of dealing with the RTB which is exceptionally biased and slow at dealing with bad tenants who dont pay rent, are anti social or who game the system.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t think primary dwelling that are occupied by the owner are affected by the new regulations. It’s where whole properties are being rented via AirBnB.

I believe its 90 days per annum for an owner occupied, Im open to be corrected, but Im sure thats correct, given the cost of accomodation and the original intent and purpose of Airbnb, I think it would make sense to not restrict owner occupiers from using airbnb, unless its for the purpose of supporting the hotel business?? I would not stay in a hotel in Dublin or even outside,have you seen the prices?

Graham

1874 wrote: »

I agree, but that is elsewhere, Im all for limiting airbnb for properties that could be rented or sold for longterm use,
but I believe Irelands problems lay with the fact that many landlords realised or experienced the hassle of dealing with the RTB which is exceptionally biased and slow at dealing with bad tenants who dont pay rent, are anti social or who game the system.

That and more money from STLs.

Wheres Me Jumper?

the amount of times i've stayed in AirBnB whilst abroad. personally i hate hotels. much prefer self-catering especially with kids.
i would estimate no more than 5% were actually lived in by the owners.
"the original intent and purpose" of AirBnB is a long distant memory.

1874

1874 wrote: »

I believe its 90 days per annum for an owner occupied, Im open to be corrected, but Im sure thats correct, given the cost of accomodation and the original intent and purpose of Airbnb, I think it would make sense to not restrict owner occupiers from using airbnb, unless its for the purpose of supporting the hotel business?? I would not stay in a hotel in Dublin or even outside,have you seen the prices?

“Where a home or apartment is a person’s principal private residence, they will be permitted to rent out a room, or rooms, within their home for short-term letting without restriction (eg. B&B-type use).”

You’ll find more here.

https://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-new-airbnb-laws-4304640-Oct2018/

1874

Deleted User wrote: »

“Where a home or apartment is a person’s principal private residence, they will be permitted to rent out a room, or rooms, within their home for short-term letting without restriction (eg. B&B-type use).”

You’ll find more here.

https://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-new-airbnb-laws-4304640-Oct2018/

For the journal, thats suprisingly informative,it appears a homeowner can let rooms on short term let all year, OR they can let their whole house on short term let for up to 90 days. I wonder where that falls in part 4.

but in both instances they need to register with their local council, I wonder if such a register is up and running.
I used to let rooms in my home, Im considering it again, but had all but ruled out short term let because of the restrictions on airbnb.

LuckyLloyd

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the amount of times i've stayed in AirBnB whilst abroad. personally i hate hotels. much prefer self-catering especially with kids.
i would estimate no more than 5% were actually lived in by the owners.
"the original intent and purpose" of AirBnB is a long distant memory.

And all this coming regulation is doing is facilitating the actual original purpose of AirBnB, while eliminating its toxic market distorting misuse.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And all this coming regulation is doing is facilitating the actual original purpose of AirBnB, while eliminating its toxic market distorting misuse.

But shhhhh... as long as people can get a "cheap" holiday out of it, who cares about local population housing availability (from residential zoned stock)

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But shhhhh... as long as people can get a "cheap" holiday out of it, who cares about local population housing availability (from residential zoned stock)

As has been oft stated, it is not the responsibility of visitors nor homeowners to concern themselves about housing availability for the local population.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

As has been oft stated, it is not the responsibility of visitors nor homeowners to concern themselves about housing availability for the local population.

When they are breaking planning laws and complain when the government enforces said laws? Damn right is the the home owner responsibility (and visitor by proxy)

runawaybishop

Graham wrote: »

Current residential density for most of the short term letting properties is zero.

Any residential density is higher then zero.

This is not the goal of the legislation. It will just further restrict supply.

How?

What currently available residential properties will it take off the market?

mdebets

Dav010 wrote: »

As has been oft stated, it is not the responsibility of visitors nor homeowners to concern themselves about housing availability for the local population.

Exactly, that's why the new legislation is needed as the state is concerned about the housing availability for the local population, and the new laws are on way to deal with it.

mdebets

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is not the goal of the legislation. It will just further restrict supply.

How would that be possible? Houses used for Air B&B are already not part of the supply of residential houses. So even if all former Air B&B would remain empty, the residential housing supply would stay the same and would not be further restricted.

Graham

runawaybishop wrote: »

This is not the goal of the legislation. It will just further restrict supply.

Source?

My understanding is the goal is to use residential property for its intended purpose.

redcup342

mdebets wrote: »

How would that be possible? Houses used for Air B&B are already not part of the supply of residential houses. So even if all former Air B&B would remain empty, the residential housing supply would stay the same and would not be further restricted.

I stayed in an AirBNB some weeks back in Dublin while visiting.

The house was for Sale and had a chat with the owner, himself and his brother had a total of 12 houses that whey were offloading all with sale agreed, the normal rental income would not cover their mortgage payments.

So that's 12 houses back on the market.

runawaybishop

Graham wrote: »

Source?

My understanding is the goal is to use residential property for its intended purpose.

The minister stated it in an article in the independent if I remember right, it was posted in this thread a few months back.

The goal was to bring these Airbnb properties back to the long term rental market.

runawaybishop

mdebets wrote: »

How would that be possible? Houses used for Air B&B are already not part of the supply of residential houses. So even if all former Air B&B would remain empty, the residential housing supply would stay the same and would not be further restricted.

Landlords exiting the market reduces supply. This is one of many initiatives by the government that contribute to landlords exiting the market but look good as a headline so morons applaud them.

Graham

runawaybishop wrote: »

Landlords exiting the market reduces supply.

"hosts" leaving the market increases residential stock.

runawaybishop

Graham wrote: »

"hosts" leaving the market increases residential stock.

So? Not the goal of this legislation. It will cause 0 new houses to enter the market but will reduce supply overall. Assuming the properties aren't just left vacant.

Found the article btw - https://www.thejournal.ie/airbnb-regulations-ireland-3-4259732-Sep2018/

"substantial outcome in terms of getting short-terms back into the long-term market"

Honestly, it's just populist unenforceable noise.