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

1…1718202223…54

Comments

  • #572
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,400 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    If LL leaves the market it hurts everyone that doesn't already have a house, or needs to move due to work.
    How about the people looking to buy? We're not short of them.


  • #573
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    TheChizler wrote: »
    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.

    I said, specifically, the rental market, several times. I also mentioned some landlords will keep properties vacate. I appreciate this is a long thread, but it's not difficult to view my previous posts.


  • #574
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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.

    And when landlords in their droves exit the market where do the properties people need to rent come from?


  • #575
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    TheChizler wrote: »
    How about the people looking to buy? We're not short of them.

    And what happens once all of the houses are sold and there are no more LLs?

    Do you guys really not care about the mid / long term?


  • #576
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    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.
    Nor does it show any depth of understanding


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    And what happens once all of the houses are sold and there are no more LLs?

    Do you guys really not care about the mid / long term?




    Well it will be less of an impact than having homes tied up as AirB&B


    The housing stock will not change if they are rented or bought. We need more houses built but we also need to prevent residential stock being consumed as short stay hotels.


    If you add 2000 homes back into the market, from AirB@&B you are not taking away landlords. They stopped being LLs the moment they took the house out of the residential market and became hoteliers


  • #578
    CoffeeBean2
    Registered Users Posts: 104 ✭✭CoffeeBean2


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    They stopped being LLs the moment they took the house out of the residential market and became hoteliers

    I think you'll find they stopped being LLs after the gov interfered with the market one too many times to win easy votes.

    If the underlying problems are in no way dealt with, you'll find things won't change anytime soon.

    Just look at the other threads on here from people looking for advice about becoming a new LL. The vast majority of advice is to run a mile.


  • #579
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Well it will be less of an impact than having homes tied up as AirB&B


    The housing stock will not change if they are rented or bought. We need more houses built but we also need to prevent residential stock being consumed as short stay hotels.


    If you add 2000 homes back into the market, from AirB@&B you are not taking away landlords. They stopped being LLs the moment they took the house out of the residential market and became hoteliers

    This legislation is supposed to bring Airbnb rentals back to the long term rental market. Given the landlords left the long term rental market, and even more restrictive legislation is in the works, it is highly unlikely this will increase supply long term, not just for renters but for the market in general. A functional housing market should include short/long term lets and buy to let properties.

    This legislation, like rent caps and tenancy duration/termination rules go no where near the root cause and cause landlords to quit. Again, highest rents in history, landlords numbers down year on year. This isn't theory, it is evidently happening.

    When even Threshold, the tenants advocate group, say the legislation is screwing landlords you know things are seriously fubar.

    As an aside the number of properties supposedly moved to Airbnb was grossly exaggerated and Dublin CoCo housing have said the legislation will be virtually impossible to enforce


  • #580
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    So they should be allowed break the law and reduce supply??

    Cool.


  • #581
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So they should be allowed break the law and reduce supply??

    Cool.

    Of course not. We shouldn't ignore reality however. This is bad legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    1874
    Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭1874


    Posters keep insisting that something illegal has occured, stating the landlord took the property back to relet as a short term letting,
    from the description given by the OP and even stated by those opposed to the (former) landlords actions, the landlord took the property for their own use as their residence, they are now an owner again and no longer a landlord, they may be letting out part of the property under a short term let (I dont know what Airbnb shows in terms of availability or usage), but at this point they are an owner again and not a landlord, so even after June (1st) they will still be able to do this.
    Now if someone had multiple properties and were saying they were residing in them all, then there'd be a case for them not correctly stating their primary residence, but it seems they have one property they wish to avail of for their own use, I dont see how their comings or goings are anyones business or if they let out a room or rooms so long as they have their own room and its their primary residence. If anyone here has proof to the contrary, they could present it to the OP, otherwise, anyone stating the former landlord/owner is doing anything wrong doesnt know that for sure.


  • #583
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    This legislation is supposed to bring Airbnb rentals back to the long term rental marnket. Given the landlords left the long term rental market, and even more restrictive legislation is in the works, it is highly unlikely this will increase supply long term, not just for renters but for the market in general. A functional housing market should include short/long term lets and buy to let properties.

    This legislation, like rent caps and tenancy duration/termination rules go no where near the root cause and cause landlords to quit. Again, highest rents in history, landlords numbers down year on year. This isn't theory, it is evidently happening.

    When even Threshold, the tenants advocate group, say the legislation is screwing landlords you know things are seriously fubar.

    As an aside the number of properties supposedly moved to Airbnb was grossly exaggerated and Dublin CoCo housing have said the legislation will be virtually impossible to enforce

    I think the legislation is returning residential properties to residences rather than them be used illegally as a business.
    As for enforcing the legislation, where there’s a will, there’s a way.


  • #584
    Riar_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12 ✭Riar_


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think the legislation is returning residential properties to residences rather than them be used illegally as a business.
    As for enforcing the legislation, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

    The extent that such planning permission rules in the first place are sensible is highly dubious. There is very little debate about this in the first place but if you look at the evidence less stringent planning requirements can make more livable cities.


  • #585
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    Riar_ wrote: »
    The extent that such planning permission rules in the first place are sensible is highly dubious. There is very little debate about this in the first place but if you look at the evidence less stringent planning requirements can make more livable cities.

    Not dubious at all... there is a law, is is being actively disobeyed. People are taking money by breaking the law. Those who obey the law are at a dissadvantage.

    It's like saying that speed limits at schools are highly dubious & if Riar decides to do 120kmph through a 30k zone & kills a child... well that was his descision to make and the law shouldn't be enforced because he saw it as dubious...


  • #586
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Bluefoam wrote: »
    Not dubious at all... there is a law, is is being actively disobeyed. People are taking money by breaking the law. Those who obey the law are at a dissadvantage.
    ...

    I haven’t read the whole thread, but the law you state “is”, is that the law which is scheduled to come into effect in June?


  • #587
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I haven’t read the whole thread, but the law you state “is”, is that the law which is scheduled to come into effect in June?

    Planning laws do exist... Hotels need the appropriate planning permission to operate as hotels.


  • #588
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I haven’t read the whole thread, but the law you state “is”, is that the law which is scheduled to come into effect in June?

    Current planning laws which say a building, built as a private residence cannot be used as a business unless an applicant for change of use is submitted and approved.


  • #589
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Current planning laws which say a building, built as a private residence cannot be used as a business unless an applicant for change of use is submitted and approved.

    Sorry, isn’t that just in certain county council areas, not necessarily in all high demand areas? I thought the legislation relating to state wide planning requirements will not be enacted until June.


  • #590
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Sorry, isn’t that just in certain county council areas, not necessarily in all high demand areas? I thought the legislation relating to state wide planning requirements will not be enacted until June.

    New rules come into effect stipulating the length of time whole properties can be let via AirBnB in high demand areas, similar to those in place in other countries worldwide.

    Planning rules are already in place re private dwellings. These are being flouted by private dwellings being used as an income earner illegally. A building built as a private home should be used as such. A quick look on AirBnB for Dublin shows in excess of 300 whole properties available for a group of 4.


  • #591
    Riar_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12 ✭Riar_


    Bluefoam wrote: »
    Not dubious at all... there is a law, is is being actively disobeyed. People are taking money by breaking the law. Those who obey the law are at a dissadvantage.

    It's like saying that speed limits at schools are highly dubious & if Riar decides to do 120kmph through a 30k zone & kills a child... well that was his descision to make and the law shouldn't be enforced because he saw it as dubious...

    Yes the law should be enforced but it is a bad law and should be liberalised. By the way the Airbnb regulations go away behind making airbnbs comply with existing planning regulations.


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,699 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    Riar_ wrote: »
    Yes the law should be enforced but it is a bad law and should be liberalised. By the way the Airbnb regulations go away behind making airbnbs comply with existing planning regulations.

    And so they should. I support the new regulations.


  • #593
    bleary
    Registered Users Posts: 495 ✭✭bleary


    Bluefoam wrote: »
    And so they should. I support the new regulations.

    They will need to be enforced actively and that's where I think there will be issues. The follow through. It's difficult in most countries. In Ireland where we struggle with regulation even more so.
    I've already noticed more airbnb properties coming up for sale or longer term rent. I'm not sure if the numbers are down overall


  • #594
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    bleary wrote: »
    They will need to be enforced actively and that's where I think there will be issues. The follow through. It's difficult in most countries. In Ireland where we struggle with regulation even more so.
    I've already noticed more airbnb properties coming up for sale or longer term rent. I'm not sure if the numbers are down overall

    Breaching the rules won’t be a mere planning violation, it will be a criminal offence. The only people violating it will be ones with rocks in their heads.


  • #595
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    Breaching the rules won’t be a mere planning violation, it will be a criminal offence. The only people violating it will be ones with rocks in their heads.

    You should read the newspaper article posted earlier in thread, an interview with DCC employee in charge. He said not only do they not have the necessary staff nor budget to enforce it, they have to work in pairs and physically catch the guest in the property, info taken from internet will not suffice. Rocks indeed.


  • #596
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Dav010 wrote: »
    You should read the article posted earlier in thread by DCC employee in charge. He said not only do they not have the necessary staff nor budget to enforce it, they have to work in pairs and physically catch the guest in the property, info taken from internet will not suffice. Rocks indeed.

    And what about the data Revenue get from Airbnb? That should be sufficient evidence.


  • #597
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 13,982 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Cryptopagan wrote: »
    And what about the data Revenue get from Airbnb? That should be sufficient evidence.

    Nope, that does not prove the guest stayed, only that they paid.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1012709/


    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-seeks-400-000-to-set-up-taskforce-to-crack-down-on-airbnbs-1.3708469?mode=amp


  • #598
    Cryptopagan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 419 ✭✭Cryptopagan


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Nope, that does not prove the guest stayed, only that they paid.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/1012709/


    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-seeks-400-000-to-set-up-taskforce-to-crack-down-on-airbnbs-1.3708469%3fmode=amp

    That says nothing about evidence from Revenue. Clearly if you received payment to rent out the property then the property was available for short term letting. If the state has (a) evidence from Airbnb that the whole property was listed for rent, and that you agreed to rent it out to so and so on such and such a date, and (b) evidence from Revenue that you were paid for same, then that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that you are illegally using it as a short term let. I don’t care what someone from the council says about all the extra funding they absolutely have to have to enforce this.


  • #599
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Potential poor enforcement of a law does not give carte blanche to break it - or discuss breaking it either


  • #600
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    CoffeeBean2 wrote: »
    If LL leaves the market it hurts everyone that doesn't already have a house, or needs to move due to work.

    A landlord leaving the market (i.e not buying any houses and not letting any houses) affects no one. He's a person, not a house. No one can live in a landlord.


    It's what happens the landlords house when he leaves the market that matters. It can become another rental, a private dwelling or a b&b or another airbnb.

    Somebody is going to be affected. And moving it out of airbnb appears to be the best option for government policy


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,083 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    https://www.thejournal.ie/short-term-lets-2-4555639-Mar2019/?utm_source=shortlink

    This ruling doesn’t change anything, but further supplants the understanding that short term letting of a residential property is a change of use


Advertisement