Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Macha · 02-12-2018 5:27am

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What do you want?

To leave those people on the street?

Nope, I want the Irish state to invest in public and social housing rather than paying the private sector silly amounts of money every year for unsuitable housing, including emergency accommodation.

Macha · 02-12-2018 5:34am

4ensic15 wrote: »

the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
!. To raise money.
2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.

Pretty stupid way to raise money. By that logic, sell off everything! You're missing the fact that the ideology behind it was that it wasn't the state's role to provide public housing, including social housing. That was the main driver.

Your third point is an argument commonly used to support this idea but i haven't seen much evidence provided, nor does it in any way justify the state failing to ensure a basic need and leaving the entire sector to private invest. Not everyone can, should or wants to be an owner occupier.

Second point was addressed by others but, again, it hardly makes up for the cost now of trying to frantically build public housing in today's housing market plus the costs of providing (largely) unsuitable accommodation through the private sector.

Macha · 02-12-2018 5:40am

Augeo wrote: »

Stats for what?
You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.

Stats for how much of Ireland's social housing stock is used for long term tenants. You should be able to find one.

Is there really an epidemic of people choosing to live in hotels over appropriate accommodation? I know we always read stories about it in the newspapers but I prefer not to do policy by anecdote.

Graces7 · 02-12-2018 6:43am

Augeo wrote: »

Stats for what?
You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.

I noticed that in the interview on the article. The woman who is complaining refused private rented accommodation when it was offered. In the UK that is called making yourself homeless and way down or off the list .

She and her child could be in a better place.

02-12-2018 6:45am

Macha wrote: »

Stats for how much of Ireland's social housing stock is used for long term tenants. You should be able to find one.

Is there really an epidemic of people choosing to live in hotels over appropriate accommodation? I know we always read stories about it in the newspapers but I prefer not to do policy by anecdote.

If much of Ireland's social housing stock isn't long-term then who the fnck is living in it?
You are the one bleating on about policy so wander off and find a stat to back up your claim.

Graces7 · 02-12-2018 6:46am

Augeo wrote: »

This is from the article in the OP..... she's not alone in her thinking either......

Thanks. I referred to that. her choice to live as she is doing then. Been watching the UK on youtube on "how to get a council house." If she did that there she would be demoted. Told she was making herself homeless .Also in the UK the council link in with private landlords very successfully.

02-12-2018 6:47am

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

I noticed that in the interview on the article. The woman who is complaining refused private rented accommodation when it was offered. In the UK that is called making yourself homeless and way down or off the list .

She and her child could be in a better place.

It's not uncommon here.
Much of the housing list consists of like minded folk looking for the free to them (it essentially is) forever home.

Redneck Culchie · 02-12-2018 6:50am

The thing with yesterdays protest is you have the Trotskyists in People Before Profit and the others of the Irish far Left bringing everything from climate change to abortion to LGBT into the equation which has nothing at all to do with housing. I would never attend a protest with these types, and have them use it for their own nefarious purposes.

Fol20 · 02-12-2018 9:28am

utmbuilder wrote: »

Was speaking to a hap or council Tennant yesterday went for a run down 3 bed, that had a second dwelling out the back the shed converted as per regulations

The house she wanted was 2000 gets fully paid for after some viewings another person was chosen

The shed out the back gets 1200 as a bedsit

Some market where a landlord has multiple offers of the above paid for by some authority

They should of capped things 2 years ago, unfair the state is paying for this.

And rent caps works so well in other countries... in a business, business owners need to see some form of value add to repair and fix things, if it doesn’t. Whats the point of repairing it. In places like NY some flats are so run down due to rent caps.

The_Conductor · 02-12-2018 10:32am

The one point in the article that no-one has seen fit to dispute is the contention that there are 30,000 vacant properties into which the homeless could move. This was a figure peddled by the Minister some time ago- which he said was based on an analysis of CSO census statistics- which the CSO in turn disputed. The Minister then told the CSO to provide the list of vacant properties to the local authorities for evaluation- which they did. Once the local authorities actually visited the properties that the CSO had marked as vacant- an entirely different story became apparent- the vast majority of these were in fact inhabited- but most often by people who for one reason or another were flying under the radar- and did not wish to complete a census form or bring themselves to the attention of officialdom.

Of the 30,000 houses that were purportedly vacant- the actual tally is said to be somewhere in teh 700-800 range- with the vast preponderance of these in rural areas- many of which were in fact offered to homeless families- but turned down on the basis of their locations.............

We do need high density accommodation units- in good locations where people want or need to live. We are not building those units. This is the crime that is happening.

Also- Dublin's housing crisis- is in fact Ireland's housing crisis- if you talk to the housing officers in any of the larger local authorities-they will tell you that the within fairly short periods of time the newly homeless in their functional areas migrate from (for example) Galway to Dublin- only a small residual number remain in the functional areas of the other local authorities over time.

The government is treating this as an inconvenient truth- that is best ignored- and at worst- can be blamed on greedy landlords- sure they're the perfect scapegoat............. It saves having to make those hard decisions that might generate a few columns of negative publicity- esp. with an election beckoning.

02-12-2018 10:43am

Technocentral wrote: »

Word.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/29/empty-dublin-housing-crisis-airbnb-homelessness-landlords

This is it in a nutshell. Return these properties to the rental market and problem solved. “in August 2018, there were reckoned to be 3,165 entire properties listed on Airbnb in Dublin, compared with only 1,329 available for long-term rent.”

STB. · 02-12-2018 11:26am

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. Return these properties to the rental market and problem solved. “in August 2018, there were reckoned to be 3,165 entire properties listed on Airbnb in Dublin, compared with only 1,329 available for long-term rent.”

These properties are privately owned.

It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing. Its the states.

Direct your ire at the same government who have sat on their hands in the last 10 years.

The simple answer to why we got here can be traced back to the government handing back money to unsecured bondholders. As recent as 2011, this government could have saved €9 billion by imposing these losses on senior debt holders as advised by the NTMA, but didnt. That money would have built an awful lot of affordable and social housing.

Then, NAMA which disposed of all the distressed assets did not keep any for social housing etc. Why wasn't some of this ring fenced ? 90% of it was sold to large American Vulture Funds at a massive discount - (the IBRC sold 60% of assets to Lone Star Capital). Then you had a ludicrous situation that housing agencies were buying back off said vulture funds at market value.

Meanwhile this same government with everything sold off and fúck all money did nothing and here we are. We have a situation created by this FG government where we are in deep shít with no social housing built in the last 10 years other than the small percentages that must be built by developers as part of their planning permissions for large private housing market. Councils are building nothing.

In the absence of a housing strategy over the last 10 years and the culmination of a large shortfall of housing stock, the Government solution was to lean on private housing landlords and impose social housing obligations as if private landlords had some public service obligations. Meanwhile the root cause is not questioned. WTF where these voted in politicians doing for the last 10 years.

You couldn't make it up.

Graces7 · 02-12-2018 12:00pm

Augeo wrote: »

It's not uncommon here.
Much of the housing list consists of like minded folk looking for the free to them (it essentially is) forever home.

That she would then grouse about her child;s distress? Words there are none.

Graces7 · 02-12-2018 12:02pm

STB. wrote: »

These properties are privately owned.

It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing. Its the states.

Hmmmmm....not sure on that one

02-12-2018 12:07pm

Graces7 wrote: »

That she would then grouse about her child;s distress? Words there are none.

Yes, it's terrible.
There are many in unsuitable emergency accommodation as they are not willing to lose their place on the list.
Sinn Fein had a "homeless" poster girl at the same game maybe two years ago.
There are all two many overly fond of the idea of their entitlement to a state supplied forever home.
These people are worsening the crisis and making attempts to solve or ease it very challenging.....

02-12-2018 12:07pm

Graces7 wrote: »

STB. wrote: »

These properties are privately owned.

It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing. Its the states.

Hmmmmm....not sure on that one

And those privately owned houses, built as family homes, are being used as a business.

Also, people need to take personal responsibility for their own lives ie housing, food, clothing, etc.

STB. · 02-12-2018 12:10pm

Graces7 wrote: »

STB. wrote: »

These properties are privately owned.

It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing. Its the states.

Hmmmmm....not sure on that one

What are you not sure about ?

You don't understand who is responsible for social housing provision ?

Deleted User wrote: »

And those privately owned houses, built as family homes, are being used as a business.

So what. What part of private ownership is not clear to you.

Graham · 02-12-2018 12:25pm

STB. wrote: »

So what. What part of private ownership is not clear to you.

Private ownership does not include the provision to opt-out of the planning regulations.

STB. · 02-12-2018 12:33pm

Graham wrote: »

Private ownership does not include the provision to opt-out of the planning regulations.

You better explain to me what part of the planning regulations you are talking about, especially in the context of what I responded to.

zell12 · 02-12-2018 12:33pm

66% of households own/mortgage their property.
They vote for those who maintain, increase, the value of their assets
Until that changes, the status quo will remain.

02-12-2018 12:35pm

STB. wrote: »

So what. What part of private ownership is not clear to you.

The bit that says that houses built or bought as private dwellings cannot be used as a business venture.

There was a time when someone on the housing list were given keys to a house and they got on with things. Nowadays, some who are on housing lists demand a house in a certain area, certain size and with a garden. It may sound harsh, but beggars cannot be choosers.

Graham · 02-12-2018 12:37pm

STB. wrote: »

You better explain to me what part of the planning regulations you are talking about.

I'll leave that to An Bord Pleanála:

the use of an entire residential apartment on a year-round basis for a series of short-term holiday lettings constitutes a change of use;
such change of use raises planning considerations that are materially different to the planning considerations relating to the ‘normal’ use as a residential apartment;
the change of use is a material change of use, and therefore constitutes ‘development’ under the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended; and
such ‘development’ is not exempted development, and therefore requires planning permission.

beauf · 02-12-2018 12:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell. Return these properties to the rental market and problem solved. “in August 2018, there were reckoned to be 3,165 entire properties listed on Airbnb in Dublin, compared with only 1,329 available for long-term rent.”

There is net increase in population of 50~60k per year.

In 2017, local authorities and approved housing bodies built and bought 6,297 homes according to the figures. The target for 2018 is just 5,869.

The Department of Housing confirmed last month that the total number of houses built by local authorities in 2017 was 780.

More than 3,600 local authority homes lay vacant at the end of last year, with councils taking on average 28.9 weeks to re-let houses after they become vacant.

Fr McVerry says that there were 6,900 social homes built by councils in 1985, compared to 75 in 2015. ...

AirBnb is not the issue. It may not help. But even if it disappeared tomorrow the problem is far bigger than that.

Graham · 02-12-2018 12:43pm

beauf wrote: »

AirBnb is not the issue. It may not help. But even if it disappeared tomorrow the problem is far bigger than that.

It's been said many times. Enforcing planning regulations to return short-term lettings back to the residential market is not a silver-bullet. It is one of many actions that needs to be taken.

STB. · 02-12-2018 12:44pm

Graham wrote: »

I'll leave that to An Bord Pleanála:
the use of an entire residential apartment on a year-round basis for a series of short-term holiday lettings constitutes a change of use;

such change of use raises planning considerations that are materially different to the planning considerations relating to the ‘normal’ use as a residential apartment;

the change of use is a material change of use, and therefore constitutes ‘development’ under the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended; and

such ‘development’ is not exempted development, and therefore requires planning permission.

Ah I see we are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about AirBnB.

Deleted User wrote: »

The bit that says that houses built or bought as private dwellings cannot be used as a business venture.

Their is no such "bit". They CAN and ARE. Renting a property on a long term basis is a business venture and the tax man takes his cut.

Graham · 02-12-2018 12:46pm

STB. wrote: »

Ah I see we are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about AirBnB.

In the context of the last few posts discussing AirBnb and properties being used 'as a business venture', that would be my interpretation.

beauf · 02-12-2018 12:50pm

victor8600 wrote: »

Immigration is not a problem, unless suddenly the government decides to import a million refugees with no right to work and no skills. This is not going to happen. The fact is that people want to live in the country that has work and good prospects. If you have many immigrants coming into the country, it means the country is doing well.

Take a hypothetical construction worker from, say, Hungary, coming to Ireland. Let this person build you houses and in 10 years there will be no housing crisis. Why is this not happening? My guess is that there no political will to actually build anything. Even we take the approach that the free market will sort the problem out, the government needs to take action to make things such as high rise apartment building in the city possible, compulsory purchase orders on vacant sites etc.

That has nothing to do with the housing crisis. They still need somewhere to live now, not in 10yrs.

We have about 50~60k net population increase per year. Much of it Irish people returning home. We are building less housing than we have even done. So little in fact that even if our population didn't increase there still wouldn't be enough housing for many years.

We don't need rapid growth and boom and bust cycles. We need slow and steady.

02-12-2018 12:56pm

STB. wrote: »

Ah I see we are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about AirBnB.

Their is no such "bit". They CAN and ARE. Renting a property on a long term basis is a business venture and the tax man takes his cut.

There’s a huge difference in a property being rented out to families long term and ones used as holiday lets. There are different planning regulations for private use and business use. With AirBnB these regulations are being ignored.

STB. · 02-12-2018 12:57pm

Graham wrote: »

In the context of the last few posts discussing AirBnb and properties being used 'as a business venture', that would be my interpretation.

Well Graham I was responding to an article about Dublin's Housing crisis and a few quotes that you have since tidied up including someone who did not understand who was responsible for social housing provision, which is not at all surprising given that the government has attempted to abdicate all its social housing responsibility to private landlords.

We all know that the reason that some private landlords had to resort to AirBNB scenarios is because they are afforded no protections whilst being lumbered with social housing schemes, whether they liked it or not.

Then we see the clueless harping on about "those privately owned houses, built as family homes, are being used as a business".

beauf · 02-12-2018 12:58pm

Graham wrote: »

It's been said many times. Enforcing planning regulations to return short-term lettings back to the residential market is not a silver-bullet. It is one of many actions that needs to be taken.

It way over stated.

We seem to want to avoid all the big issues, and focus entirely about the small ones.
Which is exactly what the govt want people do to. Take the blame entirely off them.

I wonder do all the people who campaign for all these minor changes, not at some point stop and wonder why they are having no effect, and is fact getting worse.

Idbatterim · 02-12-2018 12:59pm

Developers will build what is most profitable, understandably! But what I’d not understandable, is the morons in abp and the city councils supporting low density developments. There should be an insiststance on a minimum units per hectare that effectively stops house building in the city, unless it’s on tiny sites. A prime example is here , a site with planning for 22 houses and now planning being sought for 107 apartments and that is with surface parking!!!

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cairn-homes-plans-107-high-end-apartments-in-dublin-scheme-1.3706026?mode=amp

02-12-2018 1:02pm

STB. wrote: »

Then we see the clueless harping on about "those privately owned houses, built as family homes, are being used as a business".

Imagine if those houses were returned to the housing market? The housing situation (almost) sorted in one fell swoop.

And don’t be worrying about the poor hoteliers. Once the homeless vacate their rooms, they’ll have plenty of space for the AirBnB clients.

STB. · 02-12-2018 1:06pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s a huge difference in a property being rented out to families long term and ones used as holiday lets. There are different planning regulations for private use and business use. With AirBnB these regulations are being ignored.

So you accept that

Deleted User wrote: »

"The bit that says that houses built or bought as private dwellings cannot be used as a business venture".

Does not exist. It couldn't or we wouldn't have a rental sector at all.

Just as an aside I agree with the long term restriction placed on properties for AirBNB use. I do not however agree with the inequality of protections on private landlords nor the enforced social obligations in the absence of a government social and affordable housing strategy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Imagine if those houses were returned to the housing market? The housing situation (almost) sorted in one fell swoop.

And don’t be worrying about the poor hoteliers. Once the homeless vacate their rooms, they’ll have plenty of space for the AirBnB clients.

Returned to the rental market by the owners ?

That would solve the lack of social and affordable homes ? what planet are you living on ?

beauf · 02-12-2018 1:08pm

STB. wrote: »

Well Graham I was responding to an article about Dublin's Housing crisis and a few quotes that you have since tidied up including someone who did not understand who was responsible for social housing provision, which is not at all surprising given that the government has attempted to abdicate all its social housing responsibility to private landlords.

We all know that the reason that some private landlords had to resort to AirBNB scenarios is because they are afforded no protections whilst being lumbered with social housing schemes, whether they liked it or not.

Then we see the clueless harping on about "those privately owned houses, built as family homes, are being used as a business".

You are wasting your time. Its like those time when someone does something they are advised not to. Then when it ends in disaster they claim no one warned them. Some people only learn that fire is hot by sticking their hand in the fire, repeatedly.

Graham · 02-12-2018 1:08pm

beauf wrote: »

It way over stated.

We seem to want to avoid all the big issues, and focus entirely about the small ones.

Which is exactly what the govt want people do to. Take the blame entirely off them.

I'm certainly not one of the 'we' you mention.

The 'big issues' you're talking about have generally come about as an accumulation of the affects of many more smaller issues.

There is no singular approach that's going to fix it unless you over-simplify to the point of uselessness; build more homes.

Graham · 02-12-2018 1:17pm

STB. wrote: »

and a few quotes that you have since tidied up

For clarity; the tidying up consisted of closing the quotes properly. The content remains unmoderated.

Graham · 02-12-2018 1:22pm

STB. wrote: »

Then we see the clueless harping on about "those privately owned houses, built as family homes, are being used as a business".

It's not a huge stretch to describe holiday lettings as a business, all be it that residential lettings are also a business. The implication is, those properties are not being used for the purpose they were intended; residential.

I'm sure you understood that without resorting to arguing semantics.

STB. · 02-12-2018 1:24pm

Graham wrote: »

The 'big issues' you're talking about have generally come about as an accumulation of the affects of many more smaller issues.

There is no singular approach that's going to fix it unless you over-simplify to the point of uselessness; build more homes.

Social and affordable housing are big issues at any time. This issue did not come about as a an accumulation of smaller issues. The lack of attention to housing came about as a result of this governments inaction over 10 years. There were many missed opportunities including the ring fencing of property and land by NAMA for social and affordable purposes. Instead the government sold the lot to vulture funds who now have the country to ransom.

The singular approach is to have professional advisors in government to make sure it does not happen again. The second thing that needs to be sorted is for accountability at the highest levels of government. There is too much behind closed doors political decision making that overrides public good.

Graham wrote: »

It's not a huge stretch to describe holiday lettings as a business, all be it that residential lettings are also a business. The implication is, those properties are not being used for the purpose they were intended; residential.

I'm sure you understood that without resorting to arguing semantics.

Renting properties for short or long term use is a business. The government insists it is and tax accordingly.

There are many arguments going on in this thread (and across others too by the same posters) and many of them are the same said message, that private property owners should be told what they can and cannot do with their privately owned property because there is a housing crisis.

The government have been successful in pointing the finger elsewhere as there are people who do not understand the bigger picture. It will take 10 years to solve and the short term plan is to abdicate responsibility to the privately owned sector.

beauf · 02-12-2018 1:54pm

Graham wrote: »

I'm certainly not one of the 'we' you mention.

The 'big issues' you're talking about have generally come about as an accumulation of the affects of many more smaller issues.

There is no singular approach that's going to fix it unless you over-simplify to the point of uselessness; build more homes.

This is a bit like worrying about was the paint work scratched on the titanic.

Graham · 02-12-2018 2:31pm

STB. wrote: »

There are many arguments going on in this thread (and across others too by the same posters) and many of them are the same said message, that private property owners should be told what they can and cannot do with their privately owned property because there is a housing crisis.

:rolleyes:

Prepare yourself STB because this is going to come as a shock.

Planning permission has been around for much longer than the housing crisis.

Are you suggesting there are a large cohort of property investors that are only now discovering this?

fly_agaric · 02-12-2018 8:22pm

Augeo wrote: »

forever home.

See this term repeated here again as some sort of sneery little buzz-word but never heard it in the real world (think I've seen it on other threads...). What exactly is this "forever home" anyway? Is it one with some security of tenure? (what a shocking + irrational expectation)!

edit: googled it and see urban dictionary says it refers to housing of "unwanted" animals

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forever%20home

the_syco · 02-12-2018 9:51pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

See this term repeated here again as some sort of sneery little buzz-word but never heard it in the real world (think I've seen it on other threads...). What exactly is this "forever home" anyway? Is it one with some security of tenure? (what a shocking + irrational expectation)!

Council home owned by the council, giving the tenant a home for life, as the council won't be kicking them out for any reason. Heck, some people even think that they get to inherit the council house, even though they don't own said council house.

STB. · 02-12-2018 10:45pm

Graham wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You can disrespectfully roll your eyes all you like oh Mod One, but that doesn't change the ridiculous expectations and entitlement being expressed in these threads, ranging from one suggesting landlord's renting would operate on the basis of basic costs to him/her, reducing rent prices, to the cpo'ing of unused (not derelict) houses, to the handing back of paid for family homes as "its an asset" and they don't need it.

Graham wrote: »

Prepare yourself STB because this is going to come as a shock.

Planning permission has been around for much longer than the housing crisis.

Are you suggesting there are a large cohort of property investors that are only now discovering this?

Thanks for sarcasm, but none of those planning permissions for houses already built ever discussed rules as for letting them the same way it didn't discuss that it may in the future be subject to rent pressure zone, rent caps, enforced HAP tenants, standards dictated by bodies that cant build their own, or even private toothless tenancy agencies. Planning already decided for buildings already built has fck all to do with solving the housing crisis, although the government seem hell bent on this decoy as the houses cannot be built quick enough.

In the context of the thread - Dublin’s Housing Crisis. This all came from my statement that "It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing." People that questioned me believe it is. They also naively believe that these privately owned properties used for air BNB's will solve the housing problem, both socially and affordably which is rubbish.

Do you get it now Graham ?

Graham · 02-12-2018 11:36pm

STB. wrote: »

none of those planning permissions for houses already built ever discussed rules as for letting

Material change of use has been around a lot longer than AirBnB.

I don't think many people were naive enough to think short-term lettings would be permitted to suck up ever larger volumes of residential accommodation.

STB. wrote: »

They also naively believe that these privately owned properties used for air BNB's will solve the housing problem, both socially and affordably which is rubbish.

I agree, it's rubbish.

It's not a silver bullet to solve the housing crisis (as I've said previously).

It is one of a multitude of actions that need to be taken.

Eric Cartman · 02-12-2018 11:40pm

Graham wrote: »

Material change of use has been around a lot longer than AirBnB.

I don't think many people were naive enough to think short-term lettings would be permitted to suck up ever larger volumes of residential accommodation.

I agree, it's rubbish.

It's not a silver bullet to solve the housing crisis (as I've said previously).

It is one of a multitude of actions that need to be taken.

The only reason that short letting your property is even worth it in Ireland is because to the draconian approach we have to evictions and the absolute lack of responsibility or renumeration that can be forced upon a tenant to maintain a property.

Graham · 02-12-2018 11:46pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The only reason that short letting your property is even worth it in Ireland is because to the draconian approach we have to evictions.

No argument from me, the length of time it takes to get possession of a property from a tenant in breach is absurd.

STB. · 03-12-2018 12:11am

Graham wrote: »

Material change of use has been around a lot longer than AirBnB..

And was never enforced. It was never a planning issue where rooms were rented intermittently for short stays.

It only became one when the government saw it as a chance to differentiate between the former and "constant short-term rental" as an opportunity to grab look over there headlines ala "look at what we are doing for the housing crisis". They sure as hell were not interested in what was going on for years with neighbours píssed off with this craic.

Graham · 03-12-2018 12:17am

STB. wrote: »

And was never enforced. It was never a planning issue where rooms were rented intermittently for short stays.

Then people started to take the mickey.

STB. wrote: »

It only became one when the government saw it as a chance to differentiate between the former and "constant short-term rental" as an opportunity to grab look over there headlines ala "look at what we are doing for the housing crisis". They sure as hell were not interested in what was going on for years with neighbours píssed off with this craic.

Alternatively, it only became an issue when long-term residents started to get narked and short-term letting hoovered up ever increasing amounts of residential accommodation.

It's no a uniquely Irish problem, it's not a uniquely Irish solution.

beauf · 03-12-2018 12:25am

"..“In the 1970s,” he tells me, “a third of all new housing was built by the state. But by 2006, it was down to 5%.”..."

Maybe that's the same everywhere else too.

Claw Hammer · 03-12-2018 3:40pm

STB. wrote: »

And was never enforced. It was never a planning issue where rooms were rented intermittently for short stays.

It only became one when the government saw it as a chance to differentiate between the former and "constant short-term rental" as an opportunity to grab look over there headlines ala "look at what we are doing for the housing crisis". They sure as hell were not interested in what was going on for years with neighbours píssed off with this craic.

It was enforced, albeit not vigorously. There was a case i the High Court back in 1996 on the point.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/holiday-lettings-not-within-scope-of-planning-permission-for-residential-use-1.95551

Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Comments