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

hometruths · 09-05-2020 9:49pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Good idea, except you have to pay for it when making the booking, a high proportion of Hosts have a minimum 2 night stay. Can you see the problem with doing that?

No, what I am missing? Start with the ones that accept instant bookings. LA logs on to airbnb and makes booking for 9 months time, pays for two nights online.

What's the problem with that?

Dav010 wrote: »

Of all the factors effecting property prices, how many posts now about Airbnb? It’s crazy that people think this tiny percentage of the market will have any significant effect.

Inside Airbnb estimates that there are currently 4663 entire apartments/houses available on airbnb in Co Dublin.

Daft.ie lists 2,384 properties for rent currently available to rent in Co Dublin.

So if all those airbnb properties were on the market for long term rent you could triple the current available supply.

Do you really think that would have no significant effect?

Graham · 09-05-2020 9:54pm

schmittel wrote: »

No, what I am missing? Start with the ones that accept instant bookings. LA logs on to airbnb and makes booking for 9 months time, pays for two nights online.

What's the problem with that?

I think there's a misconception that STLs are impossible to enforce because enforcement has been pretty light-handed so far.

Much more likely is LAs just didn't have the resources to do it. It does look like that is likely to change with recent recruitment.

09-05-2020 10:04pm

schmittel wrote: »

No, what I am missing? Start with the ones that accept instant bookings. LA logs on to airbnb and makes booking for 9 months time, pays for two nights online.

What's the problem with that?

Inside Airbnb estimates that there are currently 4663 entire apartments/houses available on airbnb in Co Dublin.

Daft.ie lists 2,384 properties for rent currently available to rent in Co Dublin.

So if all those airbnb properties were on the market for long term rent you could triple the current available supply.

Do you really think that would have no significant effect?

What’s the problem with that?

2 problems, the LA is paying around €500 to make the booking which they won’t get back, and, a booking is not enough proof, the person actually has to stay there. There is an interview with the head of Dublin LA, you will find links to it earlier in the thread where he outlined the difficulty they face in order to prosecute. Two LA staff are required to substantiate the offence, they must prove the Host is the property owner and that the guest actually stayed there, so they have to catch and interview the guest in the property.

The fact that there are currently that many listings means that despite the legislation which has been in effect for almost a year, Hosts are ignoring it. There must be many, many more on booking.com and Facebook platforms, 4663 properties will not be hitting the market.

09-05-2020 10:05pm

Graham wrote: »

I think there's a misconception that STLs are impossible to enforce because enforcement has been pretty light-handed so far.

Much more likely is LAs just didn't have the resources to do it. It does look like that is likely to change with recent recruitment.

Not impossible, but the odds are still heavily in favour of the Hosts. With the economic downturn and loss of rates income, I doubt there will be much in budgets for new recruits.

Donald Trump · 09-05-2020 10:17pm

Dav010 wrote: »

There is no requirement currently for a refund in the scenario you describe, from Airbnb nor the Government.

Many Airbnb Hosts are not the property owners, but the property owner is the only one who can be prosecuted under the legislation.

You want LA officials to sit outside a property all day until the guest comes back? Good plan.

If I book on airbnb and I am handed the keys but on entering, I find out that the property is not what was advertised - i.e. I booked a place with lovely photos of a spacious three bed and it is just a studio with a single deflated air mattress, then I get on to airbnb and get my money back (they are not under obligation to find you another place). If I arrive at the address, and it is a completely fake listing, then airbnb give me my money back. If I legitimately cannot stay there for any reason which is the fault of the host, then I get my money back. It doesn't matter whether the local fire warden closed down the entire building or whether the local authorities prevented the owner from allowing me to stay there.

Easy thing to do is to book with a credit card and do a chargeback. You might get barred from the platform if you did it a few times, but you'd get your money back fairly easy.

Graham · 09-05-2020 10:26pm

Doesn't the DCC Short-Term Lettings Unit already have 11 staff and four enforcement officers?

The Minister spoke to STLs recently:

Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy said the Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the number of short-term lets in Dublin which are now available to homeless services and the HSE.

The Minister said it has become “abundantly clear” the amount of short-term lets available and that the Government needed to further regulate the market.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 10:29pm

Dav010 wrote: »

What’s the problem with that?

2 problems, the LA is paying around €500 to make the booking which they won’t get back and, a booking is not enough proof, the person actually has to stay there.

In the last budget €2.5m was allocated to tackle the problem. Would cost about €2.3 million even if every current listing had to be book at a cost of €500, which is unlikely to be necessary. Lets say Government budgets to make 2000 bookings at €500 = €1m in booking fees. But they'll get the bulk of it back.

So person making the booking pays their €500. Then emails host to say under Section whatever of Act what have you, you are required to have planning pemission to operate this business. Please be aware that unless you have planning permission once we stay in your property either you or owner of the property will be in breach of this and will be liable for prosecution.

Once the host gets the email what is the first thing that will happen. They are going to cancel the reservation. At which stage the Govt gets its money back.

From Airbnb:

If your reservation is cancelled by your host, we'll automatically give you a full refund. You'll receive an email confirming the full refund, with a link to check on the status.

Now for every cancelled reservation, at no cost other than a little time, the Government have the address of a property that was flouting the rules.

Dav010 wrote: »

There is an interview with the head of Dublin LA, you will find links to it earlier in the thread where he outlined the difficulty they face in order to prosecute. Two LA staff are required to substantiate the offence, they must prove the Host is the property owner and that the guest actually stayed there, so they have to catch and interview the guest in the property.

They can follow up the cancelled reservation and warn the host officially. If that property is then removed from airbnb that's a win for the Govt - they don't need a prosecution, or two LA staff, or proving an offence took place.

The government will be far more interested in removing the properties from STL market than criminalising the hosts.

This seems like a very easy thing to police if the will is there to do it, and all the warning signs are that it will be a priority for the next minister.

09-05-2020 10:33pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

If I book on airbnb and I am handed the keys but on entering, I find out that the property is not what was advertised - i.e. I booked a place with lovely photos of a spacious three bed and it is just a studio with a single deflated air mattress, then I get on to airbnb and get my money back (they are not under obligation to find you another place). If I arrive at the address, and it is a completely fake listing, then airbnb give me my money back. If I legitimately cannot stay there for any reason which is the fault of the host, then I get my money back. It doesn't matter whether the local fire warden closed down the entire building or whether the local authorities prevented the owner from allowing me to stay there.

Easy thing to do is to book with a credit card and do a chargeback. You might get barred from the platform if you did it a few times, but you'd get your money back fairly easy.

Does the LA have the authority to stop a guest from staying in the property? I’m not sure they are able to evict them. You are correct about the other scenarios, I’m just not sure how relevant they are to this conversation.

Regarding the chargeback, you would be charging back from Airbnb, not the Host, Airbnb would then have to recover the money from the Host. This is not like booking.com where the guest pays the Host directly. In Airbnb, the guest pays Airbnb, who deduct their cut, then pay the Host. The LA forms the contract with Airbnb when they book, Airbnb then pays the Host.

Spanish Eyes · 09-05-2020 10:37pm

A friend of ours in Co. Wicklow (RPZ) goes back home for three months in Summer (might not be feasible under current circs admittedly), but he understood he could let the place for 90 days provided he informed Wicklow Co Co. and does not need planning permission.

I think he is correct. Is he?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 10:41pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

A friend of ours in Co. Wicklow (RPZ) goes back home for three months in Summer (might not be feasible under current circs admittedly), but he understood he could let the place for 90 days provided he informed Wicklow Co Co. and does not need planning permission.

I think he is correct. Is he?

Yes, as long as it is his PDH.

09-05-2020 10:44pm

schmittel wrote: »

In the last budget €2.5m was allocated to tackle the problem. Would cost about €2.3 million even if every current listing had to be book at a cost of €500, which is unlikely to be necessary. Lets say Government budgets to make 2000 bookings at €500 = €1m in booking fees. But they'll get the bulk of it back.

So person making the booking pays their €500. Then emails host to say under Section whatever of Act what have you, you are required to have planning pemission to operate this business. Please be aware that unless you have planning permission once we stay in your property either you or owner of the property will be in breach of this and will be liable for prosecution.

Once the host gets the email what is the first thing that will happen. They are going to cancel the reservation. At which stage the Govt gets its money back.

From Airbnb:

Now for every cancelled reservation, at no cost other than a little time, the Government have the address of a property that was flouting the rules.

They can follow up the cancelled reservation and warn the host officially. If that property is then removed from airbnb that's a win for the Govt - they don't need a prosecution, or two LA staff, or proving an offence took place.

The government will be far more interested in removing the properties from STL market than criminalising the hosts.

This seems like a very easy thing to police if the will is there to do it, and all the warning signs are that it will be a priority for the next minister.

The Host does not get paid by Airbnb until the day after the guest arrives. When you book, you are paying Airbnb, not the Host, hence the reason why making/acceptance of a booking is not evidence of any offence having taken place. The Host can ignore any email, we already know planning is needed, apparently it is being ignored. And if the Host is not the owner, the email can be deleted since only the owner can be prosecuted.

It is not at all easy to police, people just think it is. As I said, the head of Dublin LA outlined just how difficult it is.

Spanish Eyes · 09-05-2020 10:46pm

schmittel wrote: »

Yes, as long as it is his PDH.

Sorry do you mean as long as it is is principal residence owned by him, that would be yes to both.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 10:49pm

Dav010 wrote: »

The Host does not get paid by Airbnb until the day after the guest arrives. When you book, you are paying Airbnb, not the Host, hence the reason why making/acceptance of a booking is not evidence of any offence having taken place. The Host can ignore any email, we already know planning is needed, apparently it is being ignored. And if the Host is not the owner, the email can be deleted since only the owner can be prosecuted.

It is not at all easy to police, people just think it is. As I said, the head of Dublin LA outlined just how difficult it is.

Are you really saying that if you got a new confirmed booking on airbnb, that was followed up by an email saying "Hi, this booking was made on behalf government, we will need evidence prior to arrival that you are in compliance with the law" - you would just ignore or delete that email?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 10:50pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Sorry do you mean as long as it is is principal residence owned by him, that would be yes to both.

Yes principal residence, don't think it even has to be owned by him, as long as that is where he lives full time.

Hubertj · 09-05-2020 10:53pm

schmittel wrote: »

In the last budget €2.5m was allocated to tackle the problem. Would cost about €2.3 million even if every current listing had to be book at a cost of €500, which is unlikely to be necessary. Lets say Government budgets to make 2000 bookings at €500 = €1m in booking fees. But they'll get the bulk of it back.

So person making the booking pays their €500. Then emails host to say under Section whatever of Act what have you, you are required to have planning pemission to operate this business. Please be aware that unless you have planning permission once we stay in your property either you or owner of the property will be in breach of this and will be liable for prosecution.

Once the host gets the email what is the first thing that will happen. They are going to cancel the reservation. At which stage the Govt gets its money back.

From Airbnb:

Now for every cancelled reservation, at no cost other than a little time, the Government have the address of a property that was flouting the rules.

They can follow up the cancelled reservation and warn the host officially. If that property is then removed from airbnb that's a win for the Govt - they don't need a prosecution, or two LA staff, or proving an offence took place.

The government will be far more interested in removing the properties from STL market than criminalising the hosts.

This seems like a very easy thing to police if the will is there to do it, and all the warning signs are that it will be a priority for the next minister.

It sounds like a good plan. However, I don’t think the council would have the ability or competence to properly manage this. Unfortunately we are dealing with institutionalised incompetence in most councils.

09-05-2020 10:56pm

schmittel wrote: »

Are you really saying that if you got a new confirmed booking on airbnb, that was followed up by an email saying "Hi, this booking was made on behalf government, we will need evidence prior to arrival that you are in compliance with the law" - you would just ignore or delete that email?

Absolutely, all I would have is the name of the guest and the confirmation that they had paid Airbnb. Have you any idea how many crackpot emails we get from guests?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 10:58pm

Hubertj wrote: »

It sounds like a good plan. However, I don’t think the council would have the ability or competence to properly manage this. Unfortunately we are dealing with institutionalised incompetence in most councils.

Fair point. Minister could oversee it. He's got €2.5 budget to play with.

I would be fairly confident if someone gave me a €2.5m budget to tackle the problem I could reduce non compliant listings in Dublin by 90% on Airbnb within 12 months.

Obviously Dav010 would be in the 10%!

09-05-2020 10:59pm

schmittel wrote: »

Fair point. Minister could oversee it. He's got €2.5 budget to play with.

I would be fairly confident if someone gave me a €2.5m budget to tackle the problem I could reduce non compliant listings in Dublin by 90% on Airbnb within 12 months.

Obviously Dav010 would be in the 10%!

How would you do it?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:02pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Absolutely, all I would have is the name of the guest and the confirmation that they had paid Airbnb. Have you any idea how many crackpot emails we get from guests?

And the guest has the address of the property. So when the letter on official headed notepaper arrives saying:

Dear Dav010

We are writing to remind you that we have a confirmed booking for this property on such and such a date. Please ensure that you provide details of legal compliance prior to our arrive.

love from the Dept of Housing/LA/whoever

You would ignore this and bin it as well?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:04pm

Dav010 wrote: »

How would you do it?

I'd announce that as part of Governments appraisal of the STL market they would be making a number of bookings in order to get first hand experience of how it operates.

And then I'd crack on with exactly what I set out in the post above. I'd just start making bookings.

09-05-2020 11:05pm

schmittel wrote: »

And the guest has the address of the property. So when the letter on official headed notepaper arrives saying:

Dear Dav010

We are writing to remind you that we have a confirmed booking for this property on such and such a date. Please ensure that you provide details of legal compliance prior to our arrive.

love from the Dept of Housing/LA/whoever

You would ignore this and bin it as well?

What is in that letter that Hosts don’t already know? If the Host is renting the property, that’s a handy bit of money from the LA.

How would you decrease it by 90%?

After nearly 1 yr, DCC has 1(one) prosecution and has recieved 20 planning applications.

Quote from DCC:

“Advertisements are not considered a planning breach of the short-term letting regulations regardless of whether or not any such advertisement relates to unauthorised use,” a Council spokesperson said. “Therefore our section does not record, for statistical purposes, data pertaining to advertisements.”

Jackaroe · 09-05-2020 11:06pm

We have been dealing with DCC for a bit trying to get an investigation going on a few units in our building, was early stages - few emails and phone conversations. In the past few weeks a few Roma families have moved into the units - it looks like its for Covid 19/isolation purposes. Not sure who is paying for this but worried now that if this is state funded in any way then they are mixed up with this sh1t show and our investigations will be dropped. Anyone know who is funding these stays?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:12pm

Dav010 wrote: »

What is in that letter that Hosts don’t already know?

How would you decrease it by 90%?

My thinking is that the vast majority will cancel the booking once they receive the email at which stage they will receive a letter saying we see you cancelled the booking, we will be keeping an eye on the future of this property.

There are those like you who ignore the email because they think it is a crackpot, but a good number of those will not ignore the subsequent letter, and they will cancel the booking. Repeat step 1.

If email and letter to property in question is ignored, property owner is identified, and letter sent to that address if it is different. If that is a landlord whose tenant is subletting on airbnb, the landlord will nip it in the bud.

Those like you, who would ignore the email and the letters, get red flagged. Two people would stay at the property as per the booking, which will provide first hand evidence of a short term let being operated.

They get prosecuted.

This is not rocket science.

Graham · 09-05-2020 11:12pm

Dav010 wrote: »

How would you do it?

Off the top of my head...

Mandatory registration of all STL bookings.
Introduce an offence of advertising an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence of carrying an advert for an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence for property owners of permitting any other to carry on STLs of an unregistered property.
Introduce an offence of renting an unregistered STL property with an on the spot fine and immediate removal from the property.
Add a zero to the fines, minimum fine to be not less than 2 years BTL revenue for the property or properties in the case of multiple properties.

One or two of the above should do the trick.

09-05-2020 11:20pm

Graham wrote: »

Off the top of my head...

Mandatory registration of all STL bookings.
Introduce an offence of advertising an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence of carrying an advert for an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence for property owners of permitting any other to carry on STLs of an unregistered property.
Introduce an offence of renting an unregistered STL property with an on the spot fine and immediate removal from the property.
Add a zero to the fines, minimum fine to be not less than 2 years BTL revenue for the property or properties in the case of multiple properties.

One or two of the above should do the trick.

So if you were given €2.5m and a job in DCC LA, you would be able do any of those? Crikey, the job comes with some juice.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:22pm

Graham wrote: »

Off the top of my head...

Mandatory registration of all STL bookings.
Introduce an offence of advertising an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence of carrying an advert for an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence for property owners of permitting any other to carry on STLs of an unregistered property.
Introduce an offence of renting an unregistered STL property with an on the spot fine and immediate removal from the property.
Add a zero to the fines, minimum fine to be not less than 2 years BTL revenue for the property or properties in the case of multiple properties.

One or two of the above should do the trick.

Exactly, there are any number of ways to solve this problem.

What is required is that the Government makes it a priority. FOr whatever reason the last government did not, but I suspect the next one will.

09-05-2020 11:25pm

schmittel wrote: »

My thinking is that the vast majority will cancel the booking once they receive the email at which stage they will receive a letter saying we see you cancelled the booking, we will be keeping an eye on the future of this property.

There are those like you who ignore the email because they think it is a crackpot, but a good number of those will not ignore the subsequent, and they will cancel the book. Repeat step 1.

If email and letter to property in question is ignored, property owner is identified, and letter sent to that address if different. If that is a landlord whose tenant is subletting on airbnb, the landlord will nip it in the bud.

Those like you, who would ignore the email and the letters, get red flagged. Two people would stay at the property as per the booking, which will provide first hand evidence of a short term let being operated.

They get prosecuted.

This is not rocket science.

Wishing it don’t make it so.

Do you not think that if it was that easy, LAs would just send those letters to everyone who advertises on Airbnb? They have the name and addresses after all.

Please tell me that this is not the limit of how you would reduce Host numbers by 90%, sending out letters and emails. Hosts already know this.

09-05-2020 11:25pm

schmittel wrote: »

Exactly, there are any number of ways to solve this problem.

What is required is that the Government makes it a priority. FOr whatever reason the last government did not, but I suspect the next one will.

You would be able to do these things from your office in DCC?

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:28pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Wishing it don’t make it so.

Do you not think that if it was that easy, LAs would just send those letters to everyone who advertises on Airbnb? They have the name and addresses after all.

Please tell me that this is not the limit of how you would reduce Host numbers by 90%, sending out letters and emails. Hosts already know this.

I think you're missing something. The point of the emails and letters is not to remind the hosts of something they already know, i.e that they should be in compliance with the law.

It is to ask them to produce evidence that they are in compliance of the law.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:29pm

Dav010 wrote: »

You would be able to do these things from your office in DCC?

No, from my office in the Dept of Housing.

09-05-2020 11:33pm

schmittel wrote: »

I think you're missing something. The point of the emails and letters is not to remind the hosts of something they already know, i.e that they should be in compliance with the law.

It is to ask them to produce evidence that they are in compliance of the law.

So you want the LA to pay €500, then turn up on the day and ask for proof of compliance? If the Host is renting, the reply would be “Don’t have it, thanks for the €500”. The LA can’t prosecute the Host as they are not the property owner, so it’s a hit-or-miss policy that could cost anything from €500 to thousands each time. Bit silly.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:33pm

schmittel wrote: »

I think you're missing something. The point of the emails and letters is not to remind the hosts of something they already know, i.e that they should be in compliance with the law.

It is to ask them to produce evidence that they are in compliance of the law.

Think of it like when a guard asks you to produce your insurance within 10 days.

It's not because he want's to tell you something you already know.
It's because they want to see proof you have the insurance.

Most people produce their insurance.

Those who don't, because they think, "I don't have insurance, but sure I already knew I needed it" get prosecuted.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:36pm

Dav010 wrote: »

So you want the LA to pay €500, then turn up on the day and ask for proof of compliance? If the Host is renting, the reply would be “Don’t have it, thanks for the €500”. The LA can’t prosecute the Host as they are not the property owner, so it’s a hit-or-miss policy that could cost anything from €500 to thousands each time. Bit silly.

No offence, but I can see you have grasped the proposals in my posts about as well as you have grasped the forthcoming threats to your stl income!

Graham · 09-05-2020 11:37pm

DCC should pick 10 cases, five multiple-property operators, five single property operators.

Pour whatever resources necessary into those 10 cases and make an enormous song and dance about prosecution/enforcement.

Do it as soon as the STL market re-opens while there are less moles-to-whack.

09-05-2020 11:37pm

schmittel wrote: »

No offence, but I can see you have grasped the proposals in my posts about as well as you have grasped the forthcoming threats to your stl income!

They are both given the consideration they deserve.

hometruths · 09-05-2020 11:39pm

Dav010 wrote: »

They are both given the consideration they deserve.

Fair enough, as I said time will tell.

Graham · 09-05-2020 11:43pm

To be honest, I think any talk of an STL market for the remainder of this year is almost purely academic.

09-05-2020 11:52pm

Graham wrote: »

To be honest, I think any talk of an STL market for the remainder of this year is almost purely academic.

Yip, got to wait and see in relation to legislation, enforcement, bookings etc. Profits of course will be decimated, but the rental and sales market are no more appealing at the moment. So it’s a wait and see.

But wishing STLs go away won’t make it so, hopefully the new year and all those rearranged events will make 2021 a much more profitable year with plenty of domestic guests looking for good value in good locations.

Ozark707 · 09-05-2020 11:54pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Yip, got to wait and see in relation to legislation, enforcement, bookings etc. Profits of course will be decimated, but the rental and sales market are no more appealing at the moment. So it’s a wait and see.

But at least if the STL’s were put on rental market the hosts would have some income? Why have it sitting there getting hardly anything?

09-05-2020 11:57pm

Ozark707 wrote: »

But at least if the STL’s were put on rental market the hosts would have some income? Why have it sitting there getting hardly anything?

For the reasons owners left the market in the first place. You have to remember, owners were leaving the rental markets when rents were at historical highs. It is worth waiting, STLs prices are set by the Host independent of caps. And if Graham is right, there will be less competition in the STL sector if some have left, good for those who stay.

Ozark707 · 10-05-2020 12:10am

Right on cue...One of the headlines in SBP is that the new gov plan a ‘crackdown on Airbnb’...

Gael23 · 10-05-2020 12:13am

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

10-05-2020 12:18am

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

There are other platforms.

Graham · 10-05-2020 12:24am

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

STLs will survive but I suspect the regulatory environment across many countries will be very different.

This enforced reset is a great opportunity for governments/local authorities everywhere to prevent things going back to the way they were. That's assuming finances/market-forces don't do the job.

hometruths · 10-05-2020 12:29am

Graham wrote: »

STLs will survive but I suspect the regulatory environment across many countries will be very different.

This enforced reset is a great opportunity for governments/local authorities everywhere to prevent things going back to the way they were. That's assuming finances/market-forces don't do the job.

Agreed. Airbnb hosts are fighting a war on two fronts, and I suspect Covid19 will knock out a whole chunk of them before the govt get their crackdown in order.

10-05-2020 9:27am

schmittel wrote: »

Agreed. Airbnb hosts are fighting a war on two fronts, and I suspect Covid19 will knock out a whole chunk of them before the govt get their crackdown in order.

Did an Airbnb owner pee in your cornflakes? I don’t get why some people have this dislike for a tiny sector who don’t want to rent, yet want to make money off their property.

Yours and Graham’s posts are almost inspiring.

One of the benefits of Airbnb for the Government is that all payment are electronic and details of all payments are sent to Revenue. Other platforms do not do this, cash is often preferred and no link to Revenue. If you make planning a requirement to advertise, owners will just use other platforms which do not check Hosts/Guests as thoroughly.

Graham · 10-05-2020 9:39am

Dav010 wrote: »

I don’t get why some people have this dislike for a tiny sector who don’t want to rent, yet want to make money off their property.

No issue with anyone making money off their property. I'd fully support strengthening protection for landlords.

They're largely contrary to planning legislation.
They're often contrary to being good neighbours.
They're often contrary to good balance within the communities.
I strongly believe in the concept of town/city planning (it's not perfect but it's better than a free-for-all driven purely by money).
I don't want our cities to turn into theme parks.
You might say STLs are parasitic on the housing market.

For clarity, I have absolutely no issue with homeowners renting out spare rooms within their own homes. The original 'sharing economy' purpose of AirBnB.

10-05-2020 9:40am

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

Whatever about hosts losing out, 25% of AirBnB workforce being made redundant. Similar for Uber. Worldwide.

10-05-2020 9:59am

Graham wrote: »

No issue with anyone making money off their property. I'd fully support strengthening protection for landlords.

STLs however are parasitic on the housing market.
They're largely contrary to planning legislation.
They're often contrary to being good neighbours.
They're often contrary to good balance within the communities.
I strongly believe in the concept of town/city planning (it's not perfect but it's better than a free-for-all driven purely by money).
I don't want our cities to turn into theme parks.

For clarity, I have absolutely no issue with homeowners renting out spare rooms within their own homes. The original 'sharing economy' purpose of AirBnB.

Thank God, I thought there was good reasons why you were against it.

Parasitic? Seriously. You’ve been watching too many box sets.

Contrary to planning, hard to argue that, Hosts are completely ignoring it.

Good neighbours. There is no doubt some guests cause trouble, but the beauty is that the few that do are gone Monday morning. A bad tenant is for keeps, being a mod here you will have read plenty of posts from both owners and neighbours about nightmare tenants who can’t be moved. There is one you are posting on about a Romanian family. So saying STL is any worse than renting, is without merit.

Good balance in community. What is this? Perhaps a form of discrimination, only those who can live there are allowed stay? No visitors allowed.

There are 6k properties, you think they will turn cities into theme parks? Seriously? Bit of Hyperbole there.

You know Graham, I wonder if there is a hint of degrudgery and even discrimination in your posts. Not all guests are noisy troublemaking community wreckers, not all areas are for the benefit only of those who live there.

Ozark707 · 10-05-2020 10:23am

Dav010 wrote: »

Contrary to planning, hard to argue that, Hosts are completely ignoring it.

This is why I think the carrot has not worked and the stick needs to be taken out to hosts who won't comply.

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

Comments