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

Dav010

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah here. As someone else asked, would you be fine with someone turning the land around you into a halting site? Or rubbish dump, pub, brothel, chemical waste treatment facility, etc? How about they just throw up a a balcony overlooking your house? A nice open air space where they can sit and watch you and your family in your home.

What has this to do with Airbnb? As another poster said

“I'd start another thread because I'd understand that scenario is not related to short-term lettings or AirBnB.”

The_Conductor

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s private property, what has this to do with the neighbours?

There has to be a balance between supplying rental accommodation (of any type) and the right of pre-existing residents to peacefully live in their homes. It is not as simple as saying 'Property Rights' and hold it up as a placard under which we should all extoll the rights of the individual.

Property has always been an emotive issue- and most probably always will be. The very least we can do is properly lay out people's rights and obligations towards one another- and I would argue that the rights of others to peacefully enjoy their homes- has been ignored for far too long.

The joker in the pack has been the abject refusal of the Minister to legislate to grant additional rights to landlords to remove delinquent tenants from properties- to the extent that just under a tenth of all complaints to the RTB are third party complaints against landlords who are unable to expeditiously evict problem tenants who are causing a neighbourhood nuisance.

Airbnb does need to be properly regulated- and has a place in the supply of short term housing stock- I think the 90 days that someone can lease a full property under the scheme is fair and reasonable (and I personally know many people who are availing of this- typically for weekends or occasionally for longer lets while they are on summer holidays or taking extended visits elsewhere).

I honestly think that a couple of convictions for running roughshod over the regulations will happen- and then it'll completely dry up. I don't see any major reduction in the 3,000 full dwellings that were advertised as fully available on Airbnb in the general Dublin area last year- I firmly believe that its only a minority of which would ever have been let in any other manner- and many of which will instead remain vacant as its the intention of the owner to reoccupy them in the immediate future.

Lets have a handful of convictions- and see how it shakes up the sector (which is a tiny fraction of the size the Minister originally stated it to be).

Airbnb is a useful distraction for the Minister- maximum noise, a couple of obviously villians, yards of media coverage- legislation to beat people over the head with- he can be seen to have acted- despite the fact that its going to make not one iota of difference to anyone.

xckjoo

Dav010 wrote: »

What has this to do with Airbnb? As another poster said

“I'd start another thread because I'd understand that scenario is not related to short-term lettings or AirBnB.”

You claimed that on private property the neighbours shouldn't get a say in what is done with it. Which is such a blatantly ridiculous statement that it's equally as out-of-place in this thread as all the nonsense I posted. You're bringing in the argument that it should be allowed, not me. I'm simply pointing out that that opens the door to all these other things. But again you want to cherry pick where it should be applied to suit your own agenda

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

It’s private property, what has this to do with the neighbours?

They live in the area, you don't.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

They live in the area, you don't.

True, but isn’t that the same with long term rental property? Are you saying that Airbnb lets effect peaceful enjoyment more than tenancies? I know Graham is also interested in this.

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Ah here. As someone else asked, would you be fine with someone turning the land around you into a halting site? Or rubbish dump, pub, brothel, chemical waste treatment facility, etc? How about they just throw up a a balcony overlooking your house? A nice open air space where they can sit and watch you and your family in your home.

These comparisons are really pointless. Using a house for a long term tenant vs airbnb is all things considered the exact same the only difference is the length of time the people stay. The house is otherwise being used in the very same way, bedrooms being slept on, kitchen being cooked in, people using the house as a house basically.

Talking about turning a house next door into a brothel or pub or land into a dump are massive changes in how the place is being used. As an aside there are plenty of brothels in long stay apartments and they are very difficult to get rid off as a friend of mine discovered living in the same block as one for a number of years.

xckjoo

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

These comparisons are really pointless. Using a house for a long term tenant vs airbnb is all things considered the exact same the only difference is the length of time the people stay. The house is otherwise being used in the very same way, bedrooms being slept on, kitchen being cooked in, people using the house as a house basically.

Talking about turning a house next door into a brothel or pub or land into a dump are massive changes in house the place is being used. As an aside there are plenty of brothels in long stay apartments and they are very difficult to get rid off as a friend of mine discovered living in the same block as one for a number of years.

I was only making the point that the other posters position that the owner should be free to do what they want with private property is objectively ridiculous. I fully accept that AirBnB is more in the grey area than the examples I gave, but that's the point. Just because there's grey areas doesn't make such an absolute statement any more true.

Totally agree on the issue with removing problematic tenants by the way. My wife used to live in an apartment beside a couple of brothels and had issues with "customers" calling to her door by mistake. Some quite serious issues. Incidentally, she used to regularly see some local Gardai calling to the door in their personal time. Must have been wellness checks on the girls. Dedicated lot....

Dav010

The_Conductor wrote: »

There has to be a balance between supplying rental accommodation (of any type) and the right of pre-existing residents to peacefully live in their homes. It is not as simple as saying 'Property Rights' and hold it up as a placard under which we should all extoll the rights of the individual..

I agree with all of your post The Conductor, but I would like to just pick up on this point. Balance is needed, but balance does not exist when pp is required for short stay, but not long. In relation to peaceful living, are you saying Airbnb guests disrupt neighbours more? Why? Like Graham, I want to know who makes such a statement, and importantly, why?

lozenges

We all live in a society. There is a social contract. There are limitations placed on the rights of the individual where they do not benefit society - always have and always will be.

A car is also private property. You can't do whatever you please with your car. You need a licence to drive it, you cannot drive above certain speeds, you cannot drive it recklessly or dangerously.

In the current state of affairs the government of the day has decided that attracting tourists is secondary to promoting availability of housing for long-term residents. It's the government's job to introduce measures to try to discourage the former and encourage the latter, which it has done. It's not the job of private landlords to provide housing as you say - but it is their job to obey the law.

Dav010

xckjoo wrote: »

I was only making the point that the other posters position that the owner should be free to do what they want with private property is objectively ridiculous. I fully accept that AirBnB is more in the grey area than the examples I gave, but that's the point. Just because there's grey areas doesn't make such an absolute statement any more true.

Totally agree on the issue with removing problematic tenants by the way. My wife used to live in an apartment beside a couple of brothels and had issues with "customers" calling to her door by mistake. Some quite serious issues. Incidentally, she used to regularly see some local Gardai calling to the door in their personal time. Must have been wellness checks on the girls. Dedicated lot....

Where did I say you should be allowed build on or operate a brothel?

Yellow_Fern

Graham wrote: »

If there were no housing crisis my opinion would be the same.

Property owners should not be permitted to unilaterally repurpose residential accommodation.

In many towns and many small cities the inability to get planning to reuse business premises as residential is also causing a hollowing out of town centres and dereliction. The authoritarians are worsening the station on several fronts.

awec

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

In many towns and many small cities the inability to get planning to reuse business premises as residential is also causing a hollowing out of town centres and dereliction. The authoritarians are worsening the station on several fronts.

Of which this isn’t one such front.

What’s your point caller?

awec

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

These comparisons are really pointless. Using a house for a long term tenant vs airbnb is all things considered the exact same the only difference is the length of time the people stay. The house is otherwise being used in the very same way, bedrooms being slept on, kitchen being cooked in, people using the house as a house basically.

Talking about turning a house next door into a brothel or pub or land into a dump are massive changes in how the place is being used. As an aside there are plenty of brothels in long stay apartments and they are very difficult to get rid off as a friend of mine discovered living in the same block as one for a number of years.

Why would your friend want to get rid of it? Surely property owners can do whatever they like with their property?

Isn’t that the view you’ve expressed many times on here?

Graham

Dav010 wrote: »

My opinion is that using your property for the purpose of letting to others should be allowed, there is little difference in letting to long stay tenants and short stay guests, so pp should be no more relevant to short stay than long stay. The onus should not be on owners to maintain or increase stock available for tenants.

I'd disagree. So does current legislation.

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

I agree with all of your post The Conductor, but I would like to just pick up on this point. Balance is needed, but balance does not exist when pp is required for short stay, but not long. In relation to peaceful living, are you saying Airbnb guests disrupt neighbours more? Why? Like Graham, I want to know who makes such a statement, and importantly, why?

Planning permission is required for a long stay as well as short stays. They are regarded as different uses of a building.

Yellow_Fern

awec wrote: »

Of which this isn’t one such front.

What’s your point caller?

Planning wont be granted. That is the problem.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

I'd disagree. So does current legislation.

I’m aware of both, I have never argued that the legislation does not exist. If this thread was about acknowledging it’s existence, there would be only one post.

davindub

Dav010 wrote: »

True, but isn’t that the same with long term rental property? Are you saying that Airbnb lets effect peaceful enjoyment more than tenancies? I know Graham is also interested in this.

I would say from my own experiences it & from the evidence given at the case in templebar there is disruption to residents - wheeled luggage up and down corridors, people calling to the wrong apartment (just given a key) or looking for directions, occasional parties during the week. DCC should publish the complaints recieved to give an idea of the public reaction.

All the above are risks that can come with tenancies, but obviously the more people coming through the property, the greater the risk of disruption to your neighbours.

Yellow_Fern

davindub wrote: »

I would say from my own experiences it & from the evidence given at the case in templebar there is disruption to residents - wheeled luggage up and down corridors, people calling to the wrong apartment (just given a key) or looking for directions, occasional parties during the week. DCC should publish the complaints recieved to give an idea of the public reaction.

All the above are risks that can come with tenancies, but obviously the more people coming through the property, the greater the risk of disruption to your neighbours.

Temple Bar is no place to live. To be complaining about noise in Temple bar is hilarious.

Dav010

davindub wrote: »

I would say from my own experiences it & from the evidence given at the case in templebar there is disruption to residents - wheeled luggage up and down corridors, people calling to the wrong apartment (just given a key) or looking for directions, occasional parties during the week. DCC should publish the complaints recieved to give an idea of the public reaction.

All the above are risks that can come with tenancies, but obviously the more people coming through the property, the greater the risk of disruption to your neighbours.

I can understand completely how that would be annoying, but my experience is the opposite, In two years I have never had a complaint, and I know the neighbours well, meeting them regularly. Our experiences color our opinions, would you say the problems you describe are the norm for Airbnb?

seamus

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

Talking about turning a house next door into a brothel or pub or land into a dump are massive changes in how the place is being used.

Right. So when you change it from a residential property, to an AirBnb, you also making a massive change to how it's being used.

Rather than having a permanent tenant treating the property as their home, and respecting their neighbours and the local area as any resident does, you now have a stream of holidaymakers using the property like a hotel, and showing the same amount of respect to the property, the neighbours, and the local area that a holidaymaker does.

That's before you get into the massive infrastructural and planning difficulties caused by allowing residential units to be used for holiday lets without regulation. Where a local authority expects to be catering for the needs of 2,000 homes and the day-to-day business of their permanent residents, converting just 10% of those units to ebb-and-flow, seasonal holiday lets affects some of the most fundamental ways that the community operates.

redcup342

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

These comparisons are really pointless. Using a house for a long term tenant vs airbnb is all things considered the exact same the only difference is the length of time the people stay. The house is otherwise being used in the very same way, bedrooms being slept on, kitchen being cooked in, people using the house as a house basically.

Talking about turning a house next door into a brothel or pub or land into a dump are massive changes in how the place is being used. As an aside there are plenty of brothels in long stay apartments and they are very difficult to get rid off as a friend of mine discovered living in the same block as one for a number of years.

Well, people living in Apartment buildings don't want random people being given a key with access to the Apartment block/Car Park.

Apartment owners in shared buildings didn't sign up for that, if you have a tenant you have all of their information. If there's a break in and a key was used to gain access to the building/parking are they going to go and track down all of your AirBNB Guests to question them ?

It's not exactly like you know all of your AirBNB Guests individually, if there are issues with a long term renter at least you can track it down to that one person.

There's also another big difference, people that rent AirBNBs are on Holidays and could be up all night during the week drinking and listening to music (fair enough it's their holiday)

People that are long term renting are not on Holidays and generally go to work and go to bed at a normal enough time.

Dav010

seamus wrote: »

Rather than having a permanent tenant treating the property as their home, and respecting their neighbours and the local area as any resident does, you now have a stream of holidaymakers using the property like a hotel, and showing the same amount of respect to the property, the neighbours, and the local area that a holidaymaker does.

That's before you get into the massive infrastructural and planning difficulties caused by allowing residential units to be used for holiday lets without regulation. Where a local authority expects to be catering for the needs of 2,000 homes and the day-to-day business of their permanent residents, converting just 10% of those units to ebb-and-flow, seasonal holiday lets affects some of the most fundamental ways that the community operates.

If you were guaranteed the tenant you are describing in the first paragraph above, you probably wouldn’t have as many LLs leaving the market when rents are at their highest ever. Have you some research to show Airbnb guests are predisposed to not respecting property/neighbours? Personally, apart from a few cracked glasses and cups, I’ve had no damage done to my Airbnb. On the other hand, I have had properties wrecked by tenants.

I can’t see what difference the Airbnb guest numbers make to infrastructure, if the properties were not used for guests, in all likelihood they would have an equal number of owner occupiers/tenants. Besides which, few Airbnb’s are let 365 days of the year, whereas a resident would be there all the time. How would this effect the local authorities operations?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Temple Bar is no place to live. To be complaining about noise in Temple bar is hilarious.

There are apartment buildings in Temple Bar. The bedrooms are usually as far from the street as possible. So, no excuse at all, scoffing at people living in that area.

And Temple Bar hasn’t been the only area of the city where there’s been problems. Try again.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dav010 wrote: »

I can understand completely how that would be annoying, but my experience is the opposite, In two years I have never had a complaint, and I know the neighbours well, meeting them regularly. Our experiences color our opinions, would you say the problems you describe are the norm for Airbnb?

It doesn’t have to be the norm. If a disruptive nearby Airbnb is affecting somebody’s life, they’re not going to care how many other people are experiencing the same problem.

Dav010

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It doesn’t have to be the norm. If a disruptive nearby Airbnb is affecting somebody’s life, they’re not going to care how many other people are experiencing the same problem.

Airbnb guests disturb neighbours peaceful enjoyment? Is that what you are stating? If one does it, doesn’t matter how many do?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dav010 wrote: »

Airbnb guests disturb neighbours peaceful enjoyment? Is that what you are stating? If one does it, doesn’t matter how many do?

You know people aren’t talking in absolutes. That shouldn’t need to be pointed out to you. You know full well what people mean so drop the faux-naïf act. It just makes you look daft.

Dav010

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know people aren’t talking in absolutes. That shouldn’t need to be pointed out to you. You know full well what people mean so drop the faux-naïf act. It just makes you look daft.

I was asked twice to link to a poster saying Airbnb effects peaceful enjoyment, and that I was refuting a point not made.

It really is silly to state that if one Airbnb guest causes disruption, that’s indicative of a problem. Thousands, tens of thousands of Airbnb let’s pass without complaint, where are all the complaints if that is not the case? The point I made earlier stands, an occasional bad Airbnb guest is better than a bad tenant, for both owner and neighbours.

I know what you mean, but Graham wants his links.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Dav010 wrote: »

I was asked twice to link to a poster saying Airbnb effects peaceful enjoyment, and that I was refuting a point not made.

It really is silly to state that if one Airbnb guest causes disruption, that’s indicative of a problem. Thousands, tens of thousands of Airbnb let’s pass without complaint, where are all the complaints if that is not the case? The point I made earlier stands, an occasional bad Airbnb guest is better than a bad tenant, for both owner and neighbours.

I know what you mean, but Graham wants his links.

Yes and when asked, you linked back to a comment you made yourself, for reasons that remain a mystery.

And, to make it more clear: It’s not going to be just one disruptive Airbnb guest. There will be more than one. It won’t be all guests but it won’t be just one.

I was going to say I feel silly having to type that out but actually I don’t. If you want to continue along these lines, knock yourself out.

LuckyLloyd

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Temple Bar is no place to live. To be complaining about noise in Temple bar is hilarious.

Thousands upon thousands of people call Dublin City Centre their home, and they are entitled to have their residential houses / apartments be surrounded by same as per applicable planning law - not illegally turned into hotels.