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

JPFabo wrote: »

Disgraceful....Private sector yet again paying for a public sector mess. Another sticky plaster by the minister who is trying to deflect from his and his governments inactions by making it look like they are doing something. Banning AirBNB Will not make a blind bit of difference, just as the rent pressure zones haven't either. People will continue to advertise their properties on the hundreds of other websites around the world that offer the same service, who is going to police all of these? Nobody! Or more landlords will just sell up and leave the market, for some its a business, if your business isn't making a profit you close it down.

This will apply to all sites offering short term lets.

All that's happening is that existing planning permission rules are being enforced.

But good for you that as long as you're making money you can impose a hotel scenario on residential neighbours eh? Stopping that is communism, outright communism I tells ya!

JPFabo wrote: »

Amirani wrote: »

The law isn't going to ban/limit AirBnB specifically, it's going to limit short term lets. So your point is moot.

Its a ban on landlords.....no landlord is going to be issued with a short term letting licence, so its a ban, no two ways about it. The government can spin it how they want.

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying). The limit of 14 days is left wing commie BS of the highest order! In the case of owner occupiers as long as there is no anti-social behaviour that would grant police presence, the govvie is screwed and it is just political posturing and appeasing the hard left political agenda (who are screaming very loud). Please tell me how the councils or any govvie agent will be able to enforce any of such BS against an owner occupier, council inspectors will not have right of entry and will have to go to a court to request entry with very solid evidence to get a warrant for entry (by which time any guest will be gone) and judge will likely refuse since it is not criminal activity. I know what I would do if a council inspector tried to get access to my own home for any of this BS, I would tell him/her to .... right off with great pleasure.

GGTrek wrote: »

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying).

You see, this is a fundamental misunderstanding not only of the constitution, but also the basics of how money changes everything.

For a start, the constitution does allow the government to regulate the home.

But "paying or not paying", is completely wrong. For example, "I can sleep with whoever I want (paying or not paying)", is clearly an incorrect statement, since if they're paying, you're now a prostitute.

Likewise, if someone is paying you to stay in your home, there is now a legal contract between you, and they are a paying guest and you are a host.

This means that all kinds of regulations can kick in.

If they're not paying you, they are just a guest at your pleasure and no contract exists, no regulations apply.

it is just political posturing and appeasing the hard left political agenda (who are screaming very loud).

Which is funny, because two weeks ago the government were accused by the hard left of being landlords' stooges, lining their pockets.

It seems like they're doing their best to piss off everyone, which is probably what any government should do, really.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry but I simply can't see a Constitutional issue here and I'm the first to cite that when it comes to RPZ's. Proper planning enforcement has always been accepted as part of the 'for the common good' qualifier in the protections on private property. That's all these new laws are doing.

Agree, and to be honest I think most of the people shouting against those new rules either don’t understand what’s being done here, or are driven by personal/ideological bias towards the status quo of not enforcing planning permissions. The very title of this thread “Air BnB to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas” is a perfect illustration of this misunderstandings/misrepresentation: Airbnb is actually not being outlawed at all and people who are renting a room in their primary residence will be able to keep doing so with no significant restriction.

I think at the end of the day it’s a bit like people who were not paying their due taxes on Airbnb rentals: when the government made a move to force them to pay they felt persecuted, but in truth the situation was more that they had (intentionally or not) been acting illegally for a while with a wrong expectation that it would be tolerated forever, so they were shocked when that tolerance ended. There was bit of tension at the time but today no one would come back and argue that not paying tax on Airbnb rentals should be tolerated. I think the same will happen with enforcement of planning permission.

Bob24 wrote: »

Airbnb is actually not being outlawed at all and people who are renting a room in their primary residence will be able to keep doing so with no significant restriction.

Possibly tangential to this thread, so apologies, but are there reasons why someone would chose this route over the Rent A Room scheme? Or does using AirBNB for you spare room come under the RAR?

Borderfox wrote: »

Airbnb was originally used as a rent your spare room but now its used for entire properties, does this not fall foul of planning laws?

One guy on the Moan to Joe programme said he'd been doing Air BnB with 20 properties in Dublin. It's a shame that what began as a people helping people scheme has been ended by the usual greedy pig brigade

anotherfinemess wrote: »

It's a shame that what began as a people helping people scheme has been ended by the usual greedy pig brigade

It hasn't ended. The purpose that AirBnB was originally set up for is perfectly allowable.

aloooof wrote: »

Makes sense. But am I correct that it doesn't qualify as tax-free under RAR? And also may have CGT implications down the line?

(And apologies, I'll stop the derailing now).

As far as I know yes you are correct, it doesn’t qualify for tax free letting (no idea about CGT). But I’d say a room in a high demand area which would rent for 1000 euros a month under the rent a room scheme is probably going to easily get you 80 euros per night on Airbnb.

Amirani wrote: »

Yeah, doesn't qualify for RAR. Not sure what CGT implications it could have, could you elaborate?

Bob24 wrote: »

As far as I know yes you are correct, it doesn’t qualify for tax free letting (no idea about CGT). But I’d say a room in a high demand area which would could rent for 1000 euros a month under the rent a room scheme is probably going to easily get you 80 euros per night on Airbnb.

I'm not sure myself, I'd be speculating, just something I heard during conversation, but I must look into it further.

In any case, thanks for replies.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

which confirms my point that there are too many tourists. try getting a hotel in Dublin any weekend and you'll see.

Too few rooms, not 'too many tourists'. A problem which is caused by over-regulation, and won't be solved by further regulation.

TheChizler wrote: »

It hasn't ended. The purpose that AirBnB was originally set up for is perfectly allowable.

Who cares what the original purpose was? I like the new purpose: allowing people to stay on a short term basis in an entire apartment or house, at a reasonable price, in any location in the world. If there are not enough buildings, remove the obstacles to building more of them.

Nermal wrote: »

Who cares what the original purpose was?

The poster I was responding to, perhaps?