No more AirB&B for Temple Bar

pc7

According to this DCC and temple bar residents have been granted a stop to AirB&B in the area. Amazed by the 79,000 quoted for the year!
http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/city-apartment-made-79000-through-airbnb-34769131.html

I think there have been a few threads here recently with people upset with neighbours using the AirB&B model, will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Sharktopus

This is welcome. As far as I can see it's a decision on just one property, but it should have a wider implication for units not just outside. I've spoken about this on other threads, I'm a resident in the area and the place is being overrun. It's not just a Temple Bar problem, depending on which stats you look at there are anywhere upwards of 2000 commercial short term lets in the city at the moment.

This article predicts it to be upward of 4000 units in 12 months time - Airbnb is in an aggressive expansion mode. http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/booming-airbnb-adding-to-dublins-rent-squeeze-34715683.html

It's been fairly clear that commercial short term letting is against planning. But this decision is a good step to reinforce this. What's needed now is some enforcement. New York, Berlin, Paris, Barcelona etc are all clamping down on this practice. We need to do the same here.

This needs to come with a major reform of the rental sector as well though. It's not a panacea for the property issues in Ireland, but plugging this leak in supply is a relatively easy step that local councils can take.

A2LUE42

Read an interesting article on this recently that showed the impact of AirB&B on daft.ie rental properties in Dublin.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-airbnb-helped-exacerbate-rental-crisis-ireland-elsewhere-power?articleId=6135555966013362176#comments-6135555966013362176&trk=prof-post

KomradeBishop

Fantastic news, hope it sets a city-wide precedent - and about time too - this should begin to calm one factor in the rental market shortage and house price surge, still need a lot more done though (the meat of the problem in both cases, is still shortages in the end).

A2LUE42

A2LUE42 wrote: »

Read an interesting article on this recently that showed the impact of AirB&B on daft.ie rental properties in Dublin.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-airbnb-helped-exacerbate-rental-crisis-ireland-elsewhere-power?articleId=6135555966013362176#comments-6135555966013362176&trk=prof-post

Definitely agree with the conclusions of this article, AirBnB should be regulated so that letting of full properties is banned (or at least heavily taxed). Return to an actual 'BnB' model- renting rooms in an owner-occupied house!

snubbleste

Sharktopus wrote: »

This is welcome. As far as I can see it's a decision on just one property, but it should have a wider implication for units not just outside.. depending on which stats you look at there are anywhere upwards of 2000 commercial short term lets in the city at the moment. ..

1700 entire properties, 2000 room/shared http://insideairbnb.com/dublin/

cup of tea

The residents might be indirectly affecting the value of their own properties into the future by objecting. Prospective purchasers may view the properties as slightly less attractive knowing that Airbandb will be a non runner. Slightly shooting themselves in the foot

iguana

cup of tea wrote: »

The residents might be indirectly affecting the value of their own properties into the future by objecting. Prospective purchasers may view the properties as slightly less attractive knowing that Airbandb will be a non runner. Slightly shooting themselves in the foot

Umm no. I don't live anywhere near there but for me the ability to enjoy living in my home is a major factor in my happiness and satisfaction with life. The value of it is completely and totally irrelevant. If anything I prefer for house prices to be lower as it means that more people have the same potential for that kind of happiness that I do.

Claw Hammer

If the entire of Temple Bar turned into a giant hotel complex with the majority of accommodation let on a short term basis the resident would want to move out and would find that the laws of supply and demand kicking in would mean that
they might not get such great prices. The numbers of eople seeking accommodation on a short term basis is relatively finite and cannot expand forever. A few years ago hotels in Dublin couldn't fill their bedrooms and some such as the former Berkely Court were offering rooms at €20 per night. An extra few apartments onto the short term market would crash the whole thing in no time.

In the example referred to above the owners advertised that they had been using the apartment for AirBnb. DCC has no appetite for enforcement in this area. Prosecutions would be notoriously difficult.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

DCC has no appetite for enforcement in this area. Prosecutions would be notoriously difficult.

If I were DCC I wouldn't be attempting to enforce it on a piecemeal basis.

As the council can enact local bylaws there's many more options open to them:

Make websites advertising 'short-term lets' responsible for ensuring such letting don't contravene planning.
Classify anything more than 60 letting nights per year as commercial. Charge rates accordingly.
Limit residential 'accommodation sharing' to 60 room nights per year, for nights above that introduce a substantial nightly residential accommodation levy.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

If I were DCC I wouldn't be attempting to enforce it on a piecemeal basis.

As the council can enact local bylaws there's many more options open to them:

Make websites advertising 'short-term lets' responsible for ensuring such letting don't contravene planning.
Classify anything more than 60 letting nights per year as commercial. Charge rates accordingly.
Limit residential 'accommodation sharing' to 60 room nights per year, for nights above that introduce a substantial nightly residential accommodation levy.

DCC have no power to make websites do anything. They would have to follow up ads or complaints from neighbours and try and identify the owner and then serve a notice and then prove the breach of planning.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

DCC have no power to make websites do anything. They would have to follow up ads or complaints from neighbours and try and identify the owner and then serve a notice and then prove the breach of planning.

I'm assuming there's something you've spotted that would prevent DCC creating new local bylaws?

Sharktopus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

DCC have no power to make websites do anything. They would have to follow up ads or complaints from neighbours and try and identify the owner and then serve a notice and then prove the breach of planning.

Would it not be possible to set up a central registration for short term lets and then introduce by-laws that forbid sites advertising property without having that registration code?

If Berlin's council can enact legislation that causes 15,000 units to be removed from airnbn and returned to the residential stock, then why can't we do something similar?

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

I'm assuming there's something you've spotted that would prevent DCC creating new local bylaws?

DCC do not have power to make bye-laws relating to websites. In any event the websites would be hosted outside its jurisdiction in any event. Creating bye-laws is not the issue. The issue is enforcing the existing planning laws. There has to be a breach of planning, a notice has to be served on the putative offender and an application has to be made to court to have the breach discontinued if there is non compliance.

Claw Hammer

Sharktopus wrote: »

Would it not be possible to set up a central registration for short term lets and then introduce by-laws that forbid sites advertising property without having that registration code?

If Berlin's council can enact legislation that causes 15,000 units to be removed from airnbn and returned to the residential stock, then why can't we do something similar?

Foreign hosted websites are outside the purvey of the Irish government let alone DCC.

Berlin differs from Dublin in relatio to its powers and also because most residential units in Berlin are owned by companies as opposed to the fragmented nature of the ownership of apartments in Dublin. There is no physical change in the apartments which are used for Airbnb so the issue of one of use. It has to be established that the apartment is on Airbnb at all and then show that it is being rented. Gathering evidence would be very difficult.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Foreign hosted websites are outside the purvey of the Irish government let alone DCC.

We're discussing an Irish company:

https://www.airbnb.ie/about/company-details

testaccount123

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It has to be established that the apartment is on Airbnb at all and then show that it is being rented. Gathering evidence would be very difficult.

Eh, Airbnb is a database of properties for rent as short term holiday lets. The whole point of it is for people to 'gather evidence' on which properties are being let in this manner.

Carlos Orange

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It has to be established that the apartment is on Airbnb at all and then show that it is being rented. Gathering evidence would be very difficult.

Pretty sure Airbnb handed over all that information to Revenue already.

Mrs OBumble

Graham wrote: »

Limit residential 'accommodation sharing' to 60 room nights per year, for nights above that introduce a substantial nightly residential accommodation levy.

Yeah, that would really help the housing availability problem.

The whole idea is to have these rooms available long term, not limit them to short term.

Graham

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah, that would really help the housing availability problem.

The whole idea is to have these rooms available long term, not limit them to short term.

We're discussing short-term AirBnB lettings here, I'm not suggesting for a second that this should apply to the likes of the rent a room relief.

Claw Hammer

testaccount123 wrote: »

Eh, Airbnb is a database of properties for rent as short term holiday lets. The whole point of it is for people to 'gather evidence' on which properties are being let in this manner.

It might be for the public. It would not stand up in a criminal charge. The exact addresses and the names of the owner are not given. Criminal charges have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Find "Alex" in Dublin 7, find his apartment, get evidence that it is being let on a short term basis, serve a notice of discontinuance on him. Prove in court beyond reasonable doubt that "Alex" is really John xx and that he is the owner and beneficiary of the income of short term letting of his apartemnt.

keane2097

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It might be for the public. It would not stand up in a criminal charge. The exact addresses and the names of the owner are not given. Criminal charges have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Find "Alex" in Dublin 7, find his apartment, get evidence that it is being let on a short term basis, serve a notice of discontinuance on him. Prove in court beyond reasonable doubt that "Alex" is really John xx and that he is the owner and beneficiary of the income of short term letting of his apartemnt.

TBH all this seems pretty trivial since AirBnB hand over all this info to the Revenue already

Claw Hammer

keane2097 wrote: »

TBH all this seems pretty trivial since AirBnB hand over all this info to the Revenue already

The Revenue do not deal with planning. The Revenue do not give info to DCC.
The Revenue's only interest is that VAT and income tax is paid.

keane2097

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The Revenue do not deal with planning. The Revenue do not give info to DCC.
The Revenue's only interest is that VAT and income tax is paid.

AirBnB give info on who rents out apartments to government agencies, I think that's the important part.

Why would you want or need Revenue to deal with planning

yqtwqxqm

This is a non story.
Nothing is going to happen to Airbnb.
There are far more tourist euros and income tax being made by having airbnb than not having it.
This is just hotels lobbying against competition and people looking to get cheaper rent at the expense of the greater economy.
The government do not car one jot about a rents. They are happy to rake in the money and blame the evil landlord for high rents.
If the money keeps rolling in they will keep rowing the same boat.

DivingDuck

cup of tea wrote: »

The residents might be indirectly affecting the value of their own properties into the future by objecting. Prospective purchasers may view the properties as slightly less attractive knowing that Airbandb will be a non runner. Slightly shooting themselves in the foot

I doubt it will pan out this way.

For every investor who might shy away from buying an apartment in a complex where AirBnB has been proven prohibited, there will be an owner-occupier/long-term-rental-landlord eager to take the apartment for exactly that reason.

Short-term rentals compromise the security and change the character of multi-occupancy buildings. Many people, myself included, would in fact pay a premium for an apartment where this was prohibited, either as an owner-occupier or a prospective landlord. I don't want to live in a building where this is happening, and if I were renting out my apartment, I suspect I would have fewer complaints from my tenants if everyone else in the building was, like them, living there for the long term.

newacc2015

A2LUE42 wrote: »

Read an interesting article on this recently that showed the impact of AirB&B on daft.ie rental properties in Dublin.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-airbnb-helped-exacerbate-rental-crisis-ireland-elsewhere-power?articleId=6135555966013362176#comments-6135555966013362176&trk=prof-post

His points are kinda weak. An apartment on daft is probably let within a day or two and taken off the site. The turnover of rental properties is a lot quicker than 4 years ago. You don't have properties sitting on daft for days anymore. I know LLs who have advertised a property online, got an email from a friend from a former tenant who has seen the house before and wired the money to the LL within an hour. This writer should have looked at the numbers on daft over a month rather than a single day versus airbnb. There is also the fact that REIT's probably are no longer advertising on daft, therefore a reduction in daft listing but the rental supply is still the same

The biggest question people should ask is why did DCC ban pre-63s without a corresponding increase in housing for low income people? Pre-63s were mainly let by lower income individuals who couldn't afford a purpose built 1 bed. Drive up the NCR in Dublin and see all the house either boarded up or being converted into a single family home. You have houses that once housed 10-15 people in units, being converted into single family home

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/are-affordable-rentals-on-the-endangered-list-1.2151186

I know a lot of Pre-63s were pretty horrific. But they were affordable for low income renters. DCC banning pre-63s has probably had a far more detrimental effect on housing market in Dublin than Airbnb has. But one likes to talk about it and instead chooses to blame the 'greedy landlords' for housing shortages

yqtwqxqm

newacc2015 wrote: »

His points are kinda weak. An apartment on daft is probably let within a day or two and taken off the site. The turnover of rental properties is a lot quicker than 4 years ago. You don't have properties sitting on daft for days anymore. I know LLs who have advertised a property online, got an email from a friend from a former tenant who has seen the house before and wired the money to the LL within an hour. This writer should have looked at the numbers on daft over a month rather than a single day versus airbnb. There is also the fact that REIT's probably are no longer advertising on daft, therefore a reduction in daft listing but the rental supply is still the same

The biggest question people should ask is why did DCC ban pre-63s without a corresponding increase in housing for low income people? Pre-63s were mainly let by lower income individuals who couldn't afford a purpose built 1 bed. Drive up the NCR in Dublin and see all the house either boarded up or being converted into a single family home. You have houses that once housed 10-15 people in units, being converted into single family home

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/are-affordable-rentals-on-the-endangered-list-1.2151186

I know a lot of Pre-63s were pretty horrific. But they were affordable for low income renters. DCC banning pre-63s has probably had a far more detrimental effect on housing market in Dublin than Airbnb has. But one likes to talk about it and instead chooses to blame the 'greedy landlords' for housing shortages

You are correct and I would go further. There are a lot of properties that are let without even going on Daft nowadays too.
And I know several people who have multiple properties and if they had more than one to let they just use one advert.

newacc2015

yqtwqxqm wrote: »

You are correct and I would go further. There are a lot of properties that are let without even going on Daft nowadays too.
And I know several people who have multiple properties and if they had more than one to let they just use one advert.

Like it is €45 to advertise AFAIK on daft now. It is not the cost that is the issue. The amount of BS emails you get are infuriating. 98% of them are answered in the description such as "is the shower electric", even though you mentioned they are electric in the ad. Or people thinking the price is negotiable despite the market we are in

snubbleste

Dublin City Council has stated full-time AirBnB needs planning permission.
Is that just Dublin bylaws or is it nationwide?

Graham

snubbleste wrote: »

Dublin City Council has stated full-time AirBnB needs planning permission.
Is that just Dublin bylaws or is it nationwide?

My guess is it's the existing planning laws which should be applied nationwide.