Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

13567…54

Comments

  • #62
    BoneIdol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭BoneIdol


    There is no equal rights because its not an equal playing field. If a landlord illegally evicts a tenant they might get a bit of a fine. They don't get evicted. I'm glad to see at least with this legislation noncompliance will come with a criminal conviction.

    Any decent compliant landlord will not be bothered by this legislation.


  • #63
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,716 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    JPFabo wrote: »
    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.

    Its not a ban,. its enforcing existing rules that have been flouted.
    Just because they got away with it doesnt make it right.


  • #64
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,082 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    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!


  • #65
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    BoneIdol wrote: »
    There is no equal rights because its not an equal playing field. If a landlord illegally evicts a tenant they might get a bit of a fine. They don't get evicted. I'm glad to see at least with this legislation noncompliance will come with a criminal conviction.

    Any decent compliant landlord will not be bothered by this legislation.

    likewise, a tenant can overstay, refuse to pay rent, destroy a property, and if the LL is lucky the PRTB might issue a small fine against the said tenant.
    said tenant refuses to pay up and gives the LL the middle finger.
    what recourse if any does the LL have? sweet FA i reckon.

    this could potentially cost the LL 10s of 1,000s.


  • #66
    GGTrek
    Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭GGTrek


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    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). The limit of 14 days is left wing commie BS of the highest order![...]

    And what of those who are clearly NOT owner-occupiers? It's not hard to find them on AirBnB you know, the folks who are not just letting out the spare room, but have bought up a slew of properties so they can play landlord without any of regulation, taxation or responsibility towards the broader community or housing market. The people you're describing won't be affected, and are not the target of the legislation.


  • #68
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    Off topic posts moved or deleted.


  • #69
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    like too many laws in this country it has to properly ENFORCED.

    personally i think there are too many tourists in Dublin, so if this leads to a drop in numbers, then i wont be bothered.


  • #70
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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.


  • #71
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    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). 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,

    Are you sure of your understanding of the new rules?

    As far as I understand, it doesn’t affect owner-occupiers very much (that 14 days limit only being for people renting a whole property). As far as I can tell someone who is offering short term lets for a room in the property where they reside can keep doing so all year round with pretty much no change besides the requirement to register with the council, so there is no problem to shout about as far is owner occupiers are concerned.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    i think we need to house our own citizens first before we house tourists/backpackers.
    i say this as a LL (longterm only) and someone who regularly uses AirBnB while on family holidays, business trips etc.


  • #73
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    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.


  • #74
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    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.


  • #75
    andekwarhola
    Registered Users Posts: 4,638 ✭✭✭andekwarhola


    Don't see the issue. You can still do AirBnB as a room offering as orginally intended. You can also let out your whole house for 90 days of the year if you want. All that's changed is that planning has finally caught up with the widespread abuse of the service


  • #76
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    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?


  • #77
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    aloooof wrote: »
    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?

    Short term rentals to tourists would be a lot more expensive than renting a room longer term, and some people might have a personal preference for that arrangement for whatever reason (they might like socialising with foreign visitors, they might prefer tourists who are out the whole day to a tenant who is sitting in the living room the whole day on the weekend, etc).


  • #78
    anotherfinemess
    Registered Users Posts: 124 ✭✭anotherfinemess


    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


  • #79
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Short term rentals to tourists would be a lot more expensive than renting a room longer term, and some people might have a personal preference for that arrangement for whatever reason (they might like socialising with foreign visitors, they might prefer tourists who are out the whole day to a tenant who is sitting in the living room the whole day on the weekend, etc).

    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).


  • #80
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    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.


  • #81
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,521 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    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).

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

    Personally, I can see the value. For example; if you and your partner have a 2 bed apartment and want to allow AirBnB guests on weekends but don't want guests staying during the week when you have work etc. Renting out a room is a much more permanent arrangement that temporarily letting people stay with you.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    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.


  • #83
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    like too many laws in this country it has to properly ENFORCED.

    personally i think there are too many tourists in Dublin, so if this leads to a drop in numbers, then i wont be bothered.

    If it wasnt written I wouldnt believe there are people out there with this attitude. How many jobs are support by tourism in ireland ?


  • #84
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,173 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    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.


  • #85
    Wheres Me Jumper?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,288 ✭✭✭Wheres Me Jumper?


    handlemaster wrote: »
    If it wasnt written I wouldnt believe there are people out there with this attitude. How many jobs are support by tourism in ireland ?

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

    maybe it's time we stopped trying to be a leprechaun theme park for them.


  • #86
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »
    i think we need to house our own citizens first before we house tourists/backpackers.
    i say this as a LL (longterm only) and someone who regularly uses AirBnB while on family holidays, business trips etc.
    Private home owners have no social responsibly to house people. They just don't.


  • #87
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    robp wrote: »
    Private home owners have no social responsibly to house people. They just don't.
    No one is forcing them to, but if they want to rent out their house, they have to follow the rules.


  • #88
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭Nermal


    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.


  • #89
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,042 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Nermal wrote: »
    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.

    And that new purpose still exists, as long as the apartment or house is planned for that and allows for tourism/short stay usage.


  • #90
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Nermal wrote: »
    Who cares what the original purpose was?
    The poster I was responding to, perhaps?


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    dionsiseire
    Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭dionsiseire


    We banned Uber because it would interfere with the whole market of taxi drivers and undermine the license plate system. Which makes sense

    We're now blocking AirBnB for a similar reason, to ensure landlords have to have registered tenants which ensures the tenancy laws and protections apply. It opens more options back onto the market, which in turn will be swept up by the current bunch of home needy folk who can't even get a viewing.

    Landlords won't lose out in terms of occupancy but might lose a little in volume sales. However it solves a bigger economic issue so really it's a necessity.

    If thousands of people now have homes before Christmas, I'm all for this.


Advertisement