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

Options
1…1617192122…54

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Maybe this will help

    2000 residential properties converted to short term lettings = -2000 residential properties

    2000 short term letting properties returned to residential use = +2000 residential properties.

    I'm sure you realise that so I'm struggling to understand why you keep pretending otherwise.


  • Options
    #543
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,126 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    It’ll be enforced on a percentage of those daring to not comply. Maybe you’ll get lucky, good luck. :)


  • Options
    #544
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,403 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    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.
    How does a property going from the AirBnB market to either the 'unoccupied market' or the residential market reduce the supply of the residential market?

    I think your point only makes sense if you count the AirBnB market as part of the residential market, which it's not.


  • Options
    #545
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    [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)

    The vast majority of guests in my mates place are Irish workers. They come for a week or two to work on a project in the area for local businesses. You can be sure that it would not happen if they had to pay hotel rates. Meaning local businesses will suffer. There will be a lot of knock on effects other than people no longer getting 'cheap' holidays as you put it.


  • Options
    #546
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    The vast majority of guests in my mates place are Irish workers. They come for a week or two to work on a project in the area for local businesses. You can be sure that it would not happen if they had to pay hotel rates. Meaning local businesses will suffer. There will be a lot of knock on effects other than people no longer getting 'cheap' holidays as you put it.

    Would you stop. Like that is representative of AirB&B properties FFS


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Would you stop. Like that is representative of AirB&B properties FFS

    Ha, you're no better than those that voted for Brexit. Only my small world view matters and if anyone tries to say otherwise, fake news.

    Things aren't as simple in the real world, why do you think none of the recent rules have not solved the problem?

    Once all small time lls are gone, who will provide rental accommodation in small towns, or locations where the big companies can't make the largest profit?


  • Options
    #548
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    Ha, you're no better than those that voted for Brexit. Only my small world view matters and if anyone tries to say otherwise, fake news.

    Things aren't as simple in the real world, why do you think none of the recent rules have not solved the problem?

    Once all small time lls are gone, who will provide rental accommodation in small towns, or locations where the big companies can't make the largest profit?

    Do you have evidence that your "example" is representative of the wider pattern?
    You are making the claim, back it up


  • Options
    #549
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    It's times like these I have to remind myself that the internet is 97% populated by 12 year olds...


  • Options
    #550
    Cuddlesworth
    Registered Users Posts: 13,980 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    The vast majority of guests in my mates place are Irish workers. They come for a week or two to work on a project in the area for local businesses. You can be sure that it would not happen if they had to pay hotel rates. Meaning local businesses will suffer.

    Used to do something similar before Air B&B. And would organise and stay in a B&B at cheaper rates then a hotel. Pretty sure that normal B&B's are still around.


  • Options
    #551
    KevinCavan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 612 ✭✭✭KevinCavan


    It’s an easy regulation to change with the stroke of a pen. What does it do in reality for the rental market? The answer is little or nothing. Rents will only go up regardless of the rule change. Supply will still be weak, as building houses is the only way to fix things in any real sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    The vast majority of guests in my mates place are Irish workers. They come for a week or two to work on a project in the area for local businesses.

    "almost 90pc visiting for a holiday or for leisure."
    https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/older-airbnb-hosts-on-the-rise-as-empty-nesters-earn-3000-a-year-letting-rooms-37370529.html


  • Options
    #553
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Do you have evidence that your "example" is representative of the wider pattern?
    You are making the claim, back it up

    Do you have evidence that your "claims" will represent a wider pattern? Nope. But I've seen the vans outside.

    I never said my "example" was the majority of the market, I said that your narrow view does not take into account other market forces that are in play.


  • Options
    #554
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    Do you have evidence that your "claims" will represent a wider pattern? Nope. But I've seen the vans outside.

    I never said my "example" was the majority of the market, I said that your narrow view does not take into account other market forces that are in play.


    So, strawman bullsh1t whataboutery. That's all that you need say


  • Options
    #555
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    Graham wrote: »
    "almost 90pc visiting for a holiday or for leisure."
    https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/older-airbnb-hosts-on-the-rise-as-empty-nesters-earn-3000-a-year-letting-rooms-37370529.html

    Which means more than 10% travel for other reasons. I never claimed otherwise. It maybe the case that the house I know is located in a place that less suits holidays, and more suits workers.


  • Options
    #556
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Graham wrote: »
    Maybe this will help

    2000 residential properties converted to short term lettings = -2000 residential properties

    2000 short term letting properties returned to residential use = +2000 residential properties.

    I'm sure you realise that so I'm struggling to understand why you keep pretending otherwise.

    Because your numbers are a fantasy. People left the rental market for a reason, you can't force them all back without addressing those reasons. Some will be left vacant and some will be sold and taken off the rental markets. Rented properties have higher density. This will reduce supply.

    Further, by making the market more hostile to landlords you cause what we see now, a drop in properties available to rent at a time with rents at a historic high.


  • Options
    #557
    Edgware
    Registered Users Posts: 5,875 ✭✭✭Edgware


    In due course maybe Murphy will show us how many Airbnb properties came backon the rental market


  • Options
    #558
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,403 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Because your numbers are a fantasy. People left the rental market for a reason, you can't force them all back without addressing those reasons. Some will be left vacant and some will be sold and taken off the rental markets. Rented properties have higher density. This will reduce supply.
    Hold on now you're swapping between rental and overall residential markets when it suits your argument, maybe pick one?


  • Options
    #559
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Because your numbers are a fantasy. People left the rental market for a reason, you can't force them all back without addressing those reasons. Some will be left vacant and some will be sold and taken off the rental markets. Rented properties have higher density. This will reduce supply.

    Further, by making the market more hostile to landlords you cause what we see now, a drop in properties available to rent at a time with rents at a historic high.


    They are not being used for any density at the moment. Right now they have ZERO residential value.

    Rented OR sold, they will benefit housing stock by becoming homes


  • Options
    #560
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Hold on now you're swapping between rental and overall residential markets when it suits your argument, maybe pick one?

    My argument hasn't changed throughout this thread.


  • Options
    #561
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They are not being used for any density at the moment. Right now they have ZERO residential value.

    Rented OR sold, they will benefit housing stock by becoming homes

    There will be a temporary bump to supply but that will be negated by the overall damage to the market. We need more houses, not less landlords.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    There will be a temporary bump to supply but that will be negated by the overall damage to the market. We need more houses, not less landlords.

    What damage?
    They are back to being housing stock. They ARE more houses.


  • Options
    #563
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,403 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    My argument hasn't changed throughout this thread.
    Can you elaborate on how supply will be reduced overall? Pretend I'm stupid.


  • Options
    #564
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on how supply will be reduced overall? Pretend I'm stupid.

    I'm stuck too. You add houses to the residential stock but somehow reduce said stock...


  • Options
    #565
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    What damage?
    They are back to being housing stock. They ARE more houses.

    The damage being less landlords entering the market than are leaving, i.e what we are seeing. This is just one of a number of stupid bandaids to appease people without addressing the root causes.


  • Options
    #566
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Can you elaborate on how supply will be reduced overall? Pretend I'm stupid.

    I have done so in this thread several times, as have others. Most recently in the last day or so.


  • Options
    #567
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    The damage being less landlords entering the market than are leaving, i.e what we are seeing. This is just one of a number of stupid bandaids to appease people without addressing the root causes.

    So if they leave do they knock the house?


  • Options
    #568
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So if they leave do they knock the house?

    You have to be a troll, as there is only one other way to explain how narrow your view on the matter is.

    Just go with me on this... If there are no LLs, that means there are no houses to rent, which doesn't mean all houses are knocked down, but that all houses are either empty or housing people.

    If there are no houses to rent, new people are not able to enter an area, and people already in that area are unable to move out. This means you cannot change jobs to somewhere outside your existing area as you are unable to move closer to that new location. Which in turn means companies don't grow / close as they can't get staff or they pay existing staff less as those people have less choice where to work.

    Less LLs means less movement of people, less choice, and less opportunities. The above example is easy to understand in the extreme case where there are no landlords, and also holds true on a smaller scale when there are less landlords.

    Why do you think Google, Facebook, etc are buying apartments? So that they can move staff around quickly.

    Sure in the short term, a few extra houses will come to the market one way or another, but it will also mean more landlords will invest elsewhere as investors are simply looking for the best return on their investment.


  • Options
    #569
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,403 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    I have done so in this thread several times, as have others. Most recently in the last day or so.

    You've said it might reduce the number of tenancies if landlords sell up and these ex-AirBnB properties are not bought by landlords, but you've not explained how these properties then disappear from the overall residential supply.


  • Options
    #570
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    You have to be a troll, as there is only one other way to explain how narrow your view on the matter is.

    Just go with me on this... If there are no LLs, that means there are no houses to rent, which doesn't mean all houses are knocked down, but that all houses are either empty or housing people.

    If there are no houses to rent, new people are not able to enter an area, and people already in that area are unable to move out. This means you cannot change jobs to somewhere outside your existing area as you are unable to move closer to that new location. Which in turn means companies don't grow / close as they can't get staff or they pay existing staff less as those people have less choice where to work.

    Less LLs means less movement of people, less choice, and less opportunities. The above example is easy to understand in the extreme case where there are no landlords, and also holds true on a smaller scale when there are less landlords.

    Why do you think Google, Facebook, etc are buying apartments? So that they can move staff around quickly.

    Sure in the short term, a few extra houses will come to the market one way or another, but it will also mean more landlords will invest elsewhere as investors are simply looking for the best return on their investment.






    So the houses reamin, are now part of the residential stock (as opposed to tourist accom), and the yet they negatively impact the stock?




    If the LL rents the house then it helps rental market
    If the LL sells the house it helps the home buyer market.


    If the LL turns it to an AirB&B they are a hotel proprietor and no longer a LL, and hurts the residential market.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    If the LL rents the house then it helps rental market
    If the LL sells the house it helps the home buyer market.

    If LL leaves the market it hurts everyone that doesn't already have a house, or needs to move due to work.


Advertisement