No more AirB&B for Temple Bar

snubbleste

snubbleste wrote: »

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

If a business is being run from a private dwelling, then change of use permission is needed. Then you get nobbled with business rates, taxes, etc.

iguana

I wonder how it would apply to someone who air b'n'bs their home while they aren't using it. Like a more flexible holiday house exchange. Or someone who has an apartment in Dublin as they work there during the week and spends weekends/time off in their family home elsewhere in the country. And air b'n'bs the apartment when they aren't there. So they are letting the entire property as a holiday let but use the property for their own use the majority of the time.

Graham

iguana wrote: »

I wonder how it would apply to someone who air b'n'bs their home while they aren't using it. Like a more flexible holiday house exchange. Or someone who has an apartment in Dublin as they work there during the week and spends weekends/time off in their family home elsewhere in the country. And air b'n'bs the apartment when they aren't there. So they are letting the entire property as a holiday let but use the property for their own use the majority of the time.

That goes back to the original premise of AirBnB, home sharing. There weren't many objections to that type of arrangement.

It's AirBnB's unintended side effect of inhabitant cleansing many popular tourist destinations that people appear to be taking issue with.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

That goes back to the original premise of AirBnB, home sharing. There weren't many objections to that type of arrangement.

It's AirBnB's unintended side effect of inhabitant cleansing many popular tourist destinations that people appear to be taking issue with.

It is not quite the same as home sharing. A room in a home is not the same as being given an entire unit. From a planning point of view the entire unit being let as a holiday home even for short periods takes it out of normal domestic use. In large parts of the country there is no objection to short term use because the local economy depends on it. Many seaside towns such as Ballybunion rely on tourists renting houses and apartments on a short term basis and the locals have no difficult with it. In fact most welcome it. They tend to object more to outsiders buying houses and leaving them vacant for lengthy periods.
DCC is being reticent about the implications for other units and says that each unit must be looked at on its own facts. Some purpose built student units have a dual permission for either long or short term and it will have to be established on a cases by case basis what exactly is allowed.
I think weekend lettings fall outside home sharing arrangements.

gaius c

Very interesting article in the OP. I don't believe for a second that the simplistic black and white "we stopped building so our vast oversupply turned into a massive deficit overnight" mantra holds up to any serious scrutiny.

conorhal

Claw Hammer wrote: »

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.

Gathering evidence would be as simple as logging on to Air B&B and taking a screenshot of the letting arrangements you can bet that it's not just the complainant that would do that as evidence but revenue and the co-co take great interest in perusing such websites also, when there's money to be gained government bodies tend to be interested. It would be pretty clear that a business was being run from the apartment if it is offered in it's entirety to let on a continuous basis. Revenue has some pretty sweeping powers these days and are very dogged in persuing taxes due, they'd be into your bank account in a heartbeat which would no doubt show deposits that proved a business was being run.

At the end of the day you need planning permission to run a business from a home.
It must be a disaster for neighbours to discover that next door will be hosing a parade of stag and hen parties every weekend, you'd loose you mind and it would have a detrimental effect on the value of your property, who would buy from you if they knew what they'd have to live next to?

newacc2015

conorhal wrote: »

Gathering evidence would be as simple as logging on to Air B&B and taking a screenshot of the letting arrangements you can bet that it's not just the complainant that would do that as evidence but revenue and the co-co take great interest in perusing such websites also, when there's money to be gained government bodies tend to be interested. It would be pretty clear that a business was being run from the apartment if it is offered in it's entirety to let on a continuous basis. Revenue has some pretty sweeping powers these days and are very dogged in persuing taxes due, they'd be into your bank account in a heartbeat which would no doubt show deposits that proved a business was being run.

At the end of the day you need planning permission to run a business from a home.
It must be a disaster for neighbours to discover that next door will be hosing a parade of stag and hen parties every weekend, you'd loose you mind and it would have a detrimental effect on the value of your property, who would buy from you if they knew what they'd have to live next to?

Revenue currently gets a data file with all the income earned by someone doing Airbnb. There is no tax evasion with Airbnb in Ireland

Are you aware there are thousands of Airbnb in Dublin creating zero issues. A person running an Airbnb doesnt want the trouble of dealing with BS from neighbours. Most are incredibly selective of the people they put into their property. The average customer for an Airbnb is educated and well travelled. They aren't some football hooligan from the UK.

Imagine you discovered that the long term tenant next store to you was extremely anti-social, parties every night, possibly drug dealing, etc. You complain to the Landlord, he tries to evict them. But they refuse to leave and 12 month wait for a RTB tribunal begins.

What would rather have beside you? An Airbnb with respectful travellers ( if they misbehave, you can give them a bad rating and they will find it hard to use Airbnb in the future) or an anti-social tenant who will take a year to evict?

Canadel

As jealous as I am of people who generate decent revenue on their property from airbnb, I really think attacking airbnb is the wrong path to be going down. It's largely innefectual with regards the housing crisis and discouraging towards private enterprise. It's a short term solution to a long term problem and I don't even think it is a solution in the short term.

4ensic15

conorhal wrote: »

Gathering evidence would be as simple as logging on to Air B&B and taking a screenshot of the letting arrangements ?

Screenshots would not be sufficient evidence for a planning injunction. revenue have no interest in planning permission. The revenue know who is getting what from Airbnb and they chase their money without regard to planning permission.

DivingDuck

newacc2015 wrote: »

Imagine you discovered that the long term tenant next store to you was extremely anti-social, parties every night, possibly drug dealing, etc. You complain to the Landlord, he tries to evict them. But they refuse to leave and 12 month wait for a RTB tribunal begins.

What would rather have beside you? An Airbnb with respectful travellers ( if they misbehave, you can give them a bad rating and they will find it hard to use Airbnb in the future) or an anti-social tenant who will take a year to evict?

This is comparing the worst possible outcome from one scenario against the best possible outcome from the other scenario and is thus an absolutely pointless argument.

The most likely outcome of a standard, long-term residential tenancy is not an anti-social drug dealer, it's a normal person who is invested in the security of their home and a civil relationship with the people who are going to be living beside them for months or years. That's what I would prefer to live beside.

I understand why landlords may want to avail of this service because of the difficulties they face when it comes to problem tenants, but that doesn't eliminate the valid concerns held by neighbours, namely:

- People behave differently on holidays than they do at home. They are louder, drink more, and are less observant of rules and social mores (this is true of people from all walks of life, not just "football hooligans"). Living beside this is unfair to the people who are not on holidays and have to get up for work in the morning after listening to the holidaymakers enjoy their holiday all night.

- More people = greater risk of problems: every new guest increases the odds of one of them being a problem. If you live in a flat which changes neighbours every two years, in a ten year period you have 5 opportunities to get a bad egg. If it changes every two nights, you have 1825 chances to get a bad egg. Admittedly, they can be dealt with more quickly, but that still sounds like the possibility of a lot of stress and sleepless nights to me.

- Security. The owners don't personally know who they are renting to, and unlike a party guest or one night stand, where the same lack of information would apply, paying guests are different as they're given keys, security codes, etc., which compromise the safety and security of the building for other residents.

- Community. While you don't have to know your neighbours or interact with them, a building or complex where AirBnB is in operation would ultimately be very similar to a hotel in atmosphere. Most people who purchase or rent apartments in multi-unit buildings do not want to live in this environment.

- Other issues, like wear and tear on the building, guests having a diminished sense of ownership/responsibility for the common areas and thus treating them more poorly, people coming and going at random hours making it difficult to tell security threats/burglars from paying guests, etc.-- not to mention the problem of turning previously residential areas into tourist-only short-term accommodation, and the knock-on effect on a long-term rental market which is already experiencing a massive supply drought.

AirBnB being used in built-up residential areas creates real concerns for both individual neighbours and society as a whole.

Of course nobody wants to live beside the worst possible outcome of a standard long-term tenancy. But to present that scenario as the only alternative to the AirBnB model is false and pointless, especially when trying to imply that the short-term letting situation is entirely problem-free and could create no issues for anyone.

terrabyte

I am sorry but i find the above comments not realistic. At the end of the day when the government decided to restrict rental increases to every 2 years they invariably forced landlords to take matters into there own hands and go the short term route.

Who accepts a capped rate of increase when costs are uncapped ?

Back in the crash no-one was seen to complain when rents were been decreased heavily every few months but the minute increases came the socially-just brigade were out in force.

Most tenants appear to want something for nothing but the silly landlords who in fact own the place as lumbered with tax @ 50-60% not caring tenant who destroy the property and expect landlord to reimburse a deposit 100%.

Onto the planning and you do raise some decent points why is it that walls are wafer thin etc in new builds is this the same planner who were happy enough to give development go ahead yet are now trying to force the hand of short term rentals ? It is doesn't that says something..

This will not end well as last time government did 'market intervention' by capping rents we seen what happened rents rocketed. Without market intervention rents dropped as there was no demand. You cannot have a market both ways.

This will look really good on the government banning airbnb yet happy to accept there corporation taxes!

The EU have just said that governments should not intervene with airbnb and uber.

One look on daft and you can see there is plenty of short term rentals in dublin with the same status as airbnb and plenty owned by major international investors.

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

What would rather have beside you? An Airbnb with respectful travellers ( if they misbehave, you can give them a bad rating and they will find it hard to use Airbnb in the future) or an anti-social tenant who will take a year to evict?

In reality it's not the either/or choice you suggest.

newacc2015

DivingDuck wrote: »

This is comparing the worst possible outcome from one scenario against the best possible outcome from the other scenario and is thus an absolutely pointless argument.

The most likely outcome of a standard, long-term residential tenancy is not an anti-social drug dealer, it's a normal person who is invested in the security of their home and a civil relationship with the people who are going to be living beside them for months or years. That's what I would prefer to live beside.

I understand why landlords may want to avail of this service because of the difficulties they face when it comes to problem tenants, but that doesn't eliminate the valid concerns held by neighbours, namely:

- People behave differently on holidays than they do at home. They are louder, drink more, and are less observant of rules and social mores (this is true of people from all walks of life, not just "football hooligans"). Living beside this is unfair to the people who are not on holidays and have to get up for work in the morning after listening to the holidaymakers enjoy their holiday all night.

- More people = greater risk of problems: every new guest increases the odds of one of them being a problem. If you live in a flat which changes neighbours every two years, in a ten year period you have 5 opportunities to get a bad egg. If it changes every two nights, you have 1825 chances to get a bad egg. Admittedly, they can be dealt with more quickly, but that still sounds like the possibility of a lot of stress and sleepless nights to me.

- Security. The owners don't personally know who they are renting to, and unlike a party guest or one night stand, where the same lack of information would apply, paying guests are different as they're given keys, security codes, etc., which compromise the safety and security of the building for other residents.

- Community. While you don't have to know your neighbours or interact with them, a building or complex where AirBnB is in operation would ultimately be very similar to a hotel in atmosphere. Most people who purchase or rent apartments in multi-unit buildings do not want to live in this environment.

- Other issues, like wear and tear on the building, guests having a diminished sense of ownership/responsibility for the common areas and thus treating them more poorly, people coming and going at random hours making it difficult to tell security threats/burglars from paying guests, etc.-- not to mention the problem of turning previously residential areas into tourist-only short-term accommodation, and the knock-on effect on a long-term rental market which is already experiencing a massive supply drought.

AirBnB being used in built-up residential areas creates real concerns for both individual neighbours and society as a whole.

Of course nobody wants to live beside the worst possible outcome of a standard long-term tenancy. But to present that scenario as the only alternative to the AirBnB model is false and pointless, especially when trying to imply that the short-term letting situation is entirely problem-free and could create no issues for anyone.

If everyone is assuming the worst for people who use Airbnb. Why isnt the same standard held to long term tenants? Long term tenants can be a nightmare. Can you find me a thread on this about someone having an issue with an Airbnb next store to them other than person giving out about the parking? Now compare it to the dozens of threads every quarter people discuss issues with long term tenants who are neighbours eg drug dealing, partying until all hours. You have completely ignored that a sizeable amount of tenants are students in place like Galway and Dublin. They are a nightmare to live beside. If you are an American on once in a lifetime trip using Airbnb, you aren't going to waste the trip hungover

A bad egg is gone in 2/3 days. The Airbnb owner can write a bad review on them and they will struggle to get another Airbnb. What happens to that nightmare tenant in a long term tenancy? They move onto the next place and their new landlord has no idea what to expect.

Most apartment blocks use a key that can't be cut. The risk of security being compromised is minimal. Most robberies are opportunities. Thinking someone will send €500 on an airbnb to get a key to break into another apartment is mad considering all you have to do is follow another person walking into the apartment block no booking required.

Have you ever lived in an apartment block? Or every owned an apartment in one? There is no community without Airbnb. I know an apartment block of 130 apartments in D1, where there is not a single owner occupier lives there. Most owners dont go to any management company meetings. Ask any of the tenants do they know their neighbours and answer is no. You dont need to worry about Airbnb destroying 'community spirit' as in 99% of apartment blocks it doesn't already exist

I can't see how a single one of your "other issues" aren't applicable to tenants too. Why would a student in an apartment for 9 months respect the apartment block anymore than a tourist? In fact I imagine a drunk 18 year who has never lived out their home would cause significantly more wear and tear than a thirty something couple using Airbnb

I am not saying Airbnb is problem free. I am saying that people have some notion that most issues associated with it are only caused by airbnb guests, when in fact you will find long term tenants probably create as much of a problem for residents if not more

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

I am not saying Airbnb is problem free. I am saying that people have some notion that most issues associated with it are only caused by airbnb guests, when in fact you will find long term tenants probably create as much of a problem for residents if not more

The main issue is not the type of guest AirBnB attracts, it's the arbitrary removal of vast quantities of housing stock for use as short-term holiday accommodation.

Everything else is pretty much a side-effect of that main issue.

DivingDuck

newacc2015 wrote: »

If everyone is assuming the worst for people who use Airbnb. Why isnt the same standard held to long term tenants? Long term tenants can be a nightmare. Can you find me a thread on this about someone having an issue with an Airbnb next store to them other than person giving out about the parking? Now compare it to the dozens of threads every quarter people discuss issues with long term tenants who are neighbours eg drug dealing, partying until all hours. You have completely ignored that a sizeable amount of tenants are students in place like Galway and Dublin. They are a nightmare to live beside. If you are an American on once in a lifetime trip using Airbnb, you aren't going to waste the trip hungover

A bad egg is gone in 2/3 days. The Airbnb owner can write a bad review on them and they will struggle to get another Airbnb. What happens to that nightmare tenant in a long term tenancy? They move onto the next place and their new landlord has no idea what to expect.

Most apartment blocks use a key that can't be cut. The risk of security being compromised is minimal. Most robberies are opportunities. Thinking someone will send €500 on an airbnb to get a key to break into another apartment is mad considering all you have to do is follow another person walking into the apartment block no booking required.

Have you ever lived in an apartment block? Or every owned an apartment in one? There is no community without Airbnb. I know an apartment block of 130 apartments in D1, where there is not a single owner occupier lives there. Most owners dont go to any management company meetings. Ask any of the tenants do they know their neighbours and answer is no. You dont need to worry about Airbnb destroying 'community spirit' as in 99% of apartment blocks it doesn't already exist

I can't see how a single one of your "other issues" aren't applicable to tenants too. Why would a student in an apartment for 9 months respect the apartment block anymore than a tourist? In fact I imagine a drunk 18 year who has never lived out their home would cause significantly more wear and tear than a thirty something couple using Airbnb

I am not saying Airbnb is problem free. I am saying that people have some notion that most issues associated with it are only caused by airbnb guests, when in fact you will find long term tenants probably create as much of a problem for residents if not more

I own an apartment and in live in it. I am not friends with my neighbours, but I am familiar with them and would know the difference between someone who lives in the building and someone who doesn't. This would be true of most people living here, I think. This is community enough for me, and is something which I believe acts as a vital security measure for multi-occupancy buildings, but your opinion may differ based on your experience.

Without going into specifics, it is entirely possible where I am to give building access/copy keys without any trouble. Security remains a concern for me.

I don't know where you arrived at the figure of €500; most of the rentals I'm seeing on AirBnB are less than €100 per night, and that's in Dublin. Some are under €50. That's a very small outlay to gain access to a building, especially if you can go and return later.

Nobody is saying that long-term tenants cannot cause a problem. Nobody is saying that the issues which arise from these problematic long-term tenants isn't something that needs to be dealt with at a legislative level. What people are saying is that short-term tenancies cause different and additional problems, which previous to the rise of AirBnB, were not things people had to worry about. When you bought an apartment to live in or rent out, or moved into a rented apartment, before the rise of the short term rental, you didn't have to worry about the issues I mentioned in my previous post-- which, fine, aren't a concern for you, but they are a concern for other people. This is a new set of worries on top of the older ones, and many people are unhappy about having to bear both.

As to students-- they don't want to get kicked out after two months, and usually can't afford to. In my experience, if they're reported to the management company, they'll usually either straighten up or head off before it escalates and they lose their deposit. Some do still cause problems (as do single professionals, and families), but they have more to lose than someone who is there for a night or two and then off again.

On top of these issues for individuals, there also remains the wider issue of depleting the supply of rental stock, which is already too small. I don't hold individual landlords accountable for capitalising on an opportunity available to them, but I maintain that it's a loophole which needs closing to protect both the individual and society at large.

newacc2015

DivingDuck wrote: »

I own an apartment and in live in it. I am not friends with my neighbours, but I am familiar with them and would know the difference between someone who lives in the building and someone who doesn't. This would be true of most people living here, I think. This is community enough for me, and is something which I believe acts as a vital security measure for multi-occupancy buildings, but your opinion may differ based on your experience.

Without going into specifics, it is entirely possible where I am to give building access/copy keys without any trouble. Security remains a concern for me.

I don't know where you arrived at the figure of €500; most of the rentals I'm seeing on AirBnB are less than €100 per night, and that's in Dublin. Some are under €50. That's a very small outlay to gain access to a building, especially if you can go and return later.

Nobody is saying that long-term tenants cannot cause a problem. Nobody is saying that the issues which arise from these problematic long-term tenants isn't something that needs to be dealt with at a legislative level. What people are saying is that short-term tenancies cause different and additional problems, which previous to the rise of AirBnB, were not things people had to worry about. When you bought an apartment to live in or rent out, or moved into a rented apartment, before the rise of the short term rental, you didn't have to worry about the issues I mentioned in my previous post-- which, fine, aren't a concern for you, but they are a concern for other people. This is a new set of worries on top of the older ones, and many people are unhappy about having to bear both.

As to students-- they don't want to get kicked out after two months, and usually can't afford to. In my experience, if they're reported to the management company, they'll usually either straighten up or head off before it escalates and they lose their deposit. Some do still cause problems (as do single professionals, and families), but they have more to lose than someone who is there for a night or two and then off again.

On top of these issues for individuals, there also remains the wider issue of depleting the supply of rental stock, which is already too small. I don't hold individual landlords accountable for capitalising on an opportunity available to them, but I maintain that it's a loophole which needs closing to protect both the individual and society at large.

My definition of community and yours is clearly different

I don't know of any apartment blocks in Dublin City which still have a key code system for entering. Most use special keys that can't be copied without a code for security purposes. Regardless of this, it doesnt address the fact most thefts are opportunistic ie a junkie see the door to an apartment block open and slips in.

Nearly all rental are 2 nights minimum. An entire place in a not so special 2 bed including booking and cleaning fee will set you back €500 for 2 night. €50 rentals are a bed in someones room. You will have to give back the keys for that.

So the main issues people have with Airbnb is that they just don't like them? You haven't list any other than people have more worries

I wish students were that easy to discipline. Most don't care if they if they get warning from the management company or Landlord. Once they are there past 6 months, it is near impossible to get them out. Explain to me how students can lose their deposit over misbehaving? The RTB aren't going to let a landlord keep a deposit as the tenants were creating noise and letting random people sleep over.

I'm sorry when some starts an argument "I dont have an issue with, but ...". They generally do have an issue with it. Have you asked yourself why Airbnb's exist in the first place? Demand is the simple reason. There isnt enough hotel rooms in the city. Most hotels are full every night regardless of whether there is anything on. Dublin needs more hotel rooms and they are being built. If you ban Airbnb, these tourists cant just book hotel rooms as they are full. They just won't visit Dublin and thousands will lose their jobs. On the bright side there will be apartments for them to get rent allowance in since Airbnb will have freed up apartments.

What individual needs to be protected? Protect society from what? Cultured Americans who use Airbnb to support one of our largest industry and support hundreds of thousands of jobs?

keane2097

Maybe I'm doing it wrong but looks like the vast majority of places in Dublin are well under €250 a night.

Also from a quick look on Trivago there appears to be little (i.e. no) issue with hotel room availability in the city.

DivingDuck

newacc2015 wrote: »

My definition of community and yours is clearly different

I don't know of any apartment blocks in Dublin City which still have a key code system for entering. Most use special keys that can't be copied without a code for security purposes. Regardless of this, it doesnt address the fact most thefts are opportunistic ie a junkie see the door to an apartment block open and slips in.

Nearly all rental are 2 nights minimum. An entire place in a not so special 2 bed including booking and cleaning fee will set you back €500 for 2 night. €50 rentals are a bed in someones room. You will have to give back the keys for that.

So the main issues people have with Airbnb is that they just don't like them? You haven't list any other than people have more worries

I wish students were that easy to discipline. Most don't care if they if they get warning from the management company or Landlord. Once they are there past 6 months, it is near impossible to get them out. Explain to me how students can lose their deposit over misbehaving? The RTB aren't going to let a landlord keep a deposit as the tenants were creating noise and letting random people sleep over.

I'm sorry when some starts an argument "I dont have an issue with, but ...". They generally do have an issue with it. Have you asked yourself why Airbnb's exist in the first place? Demand is the simple reason. There isnt enough hotel rooms in the city. Most hotels are full every night regardless of whether there is anything on. Dublin needs more hotel rooms and they are being built. If you ban Airbnb, these tourists cant just book hotel rooms as they are full. They just won't visit Dublin and thousands will lose their jobs. On the bright side there will be apartments for them to get rent allowance in since Airbnb will have freed up apartments.

What individual needs to be protected? Protect society from what? Cultured Americans who use Airbnb to support one of our largest industry and support hundreds of thousands of jobs?

Some thefts are opportunistic in nature. Some are planned. If it's possible to reduce the risk then that should always be done, in my opinion. I assume you return the keys at the end of your visit either with a single room or entire home, but that won't prevent you from copying them before then.

You could say "so people just don't like it" as a reaction to someone having a problem with anything, from dog mess in the street to anti-social behaviour to posting offensive language on the internet. Ultimately, unless there is an immediate and definite guarantee of loss of life or property, that is what all complaints about everything amount to. The question is whether or not people are being reasonable in this response. I believe they are, you believe they aren't, and it appears nothing is going to alter either position.

Students have been that easy "to discipline", in my experience of many years living in an apartment in Dublin. After a complaint, they have either left or settled down. Your experience may differ, however.

As to deposits, their lease will virtually always include adhering to the house rules (or the landlord has slipped up), so if they break those, they have broken the terms of their lease. If the landlord has to ask them to leave because they have been receiving complaints from the MC, they should be within their rights to withhold the deposit as they will have incurred a loss by the tenancy ending early owing to the fault of the tenant. I don't have personal experience with this, so I may be misunderstanding, but I was under the impression that this was the result of the legislation? Perhaps I'm incorrect there.

I have seen nobody, least of all myself, say "I don't have an issue with it but". I have many issues with it. I've made this clear. I believe it compromises quality of living and security for the other residents of the building. You feel differently, which is your right, but that won't stop other people from having complaints-- or hopefully, having those complaints upheld as valid by future legislation or the more stringent enforcement of current legislation.

As explained previously, the individuals who need protecting are those whose lives and homes are made less comfortable by AirBnB operating in their buildings. I purchased an apartment in a 100% residential building, as that's where I felt safe and comfortable and the environment in which I wanted to live. I believe this is true of the vast, vast majority of people who bought or rented apartments in multi occupancy buildings. We need to be, and should be, protected by legislation which prevents short-term rentals in residential areas without planning permission, and/or by the MC bylaws prohibiting the operation of a business from a multi-occupancy residential building.

You may be of the opinion that we do not deserve those protections, but the fact remains that we are legally entitled to them, and additionally, apartment owners signed contracts agreeing to live by those rules when purchasing our homes (as did long-term renters, come to that).

On a collective level, society needs protecting in two ways. It clearly changes the character of an area-- would anyone argue that Temple Bar has the same atmosphere as Dundrum or Clontarf? More importantly, though it indisputably affects the level of supply in a market where supply is under severe enough pressure as it is.

I don't know anything about the state of the tourism industry and I don't claim to, but I do know that hotels.com have upwards of twenty rooms in Dublin available for tomorrow night, as of now, alongside the numerous hostels, B&Bs, guesthouses, etc., so I personally struggle to believe that there's an accommodation crisis for tourists considering that there are plenty of rooms available, in June, with less than twenty four hours notice. If such a crisis does exist, it's in no way comparable to the massive, citywide crisis regarding long-term accommodation which is negatively affecting landlords and tenants and present.

You are determined to flatly ignore all points made against your position, so I'm beginning to see little point in continuing this discussion.

athtrasna

DivingDuck wrote: »

You are determined to flatly ignore all points made against your position, so I'm beginning to see little point in continuing this discussion.

Mod note

The to and fro has taken over the thread in recent days somewhat. It is off putting to other posters so please take it to PM

Thanks

maurodipo

DivingDuck wrote: »

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.

I am not sure how 'Short Term Rental compromise the security of multi-occupancy buildings'. I have been an AirBnB Host for almost 4 years and never (and I say never) have I received any complaints from neighbours about my short term Guests. We are talking about people who visit Dublin for a very short time and are in the age bracket 30-60 yrs (my stats refer to whole apartment rental, not for cheap individual rooms rental). For those who are not familiar with the AirBnB terms and procedures, all the Guests are screened by AirBnB with ID control and by previous reviews from former Hosts. That means that Guests who might create troubles are identified and banned for future rentals. As a matter of fact, in your building it's more than likely that one or more apartments are already used by their owners as AirBnB accommodation but you never realised it. Because they cause no trouble indeed. Then ****e can happen, but by my experience as a Host (and now as a business owner in the short term rental sector) this is not the norm.

Why do you think more and more landlords are switching from Long Term to Short Term tenancies? Is it just for money? I don't think so... As a Landlord, or better as a Host, I much rather having 'AirBnB strangers' living in my place rather than picking a bad tenant or a bad behaved student in my apartment and being stuck with a long term tenancy. And I am pretty sure the neighbours would much prefer that too. Becoming a Host is not easy and involves an awful amount of skills and work (sales/marketing/customer service/collection/accountancy/24hrs on call etc.) but it can give you a good income, preserve your property in good conditions far better than a long term tenancy and give you access to the property and sell it whenever you want.

Graham

maurodipo wrote: »

As a Landlord, or better as a Host, I much rather having 'AirBnB strangers' living in my place rather than picking a bad tenant or a bad behaved student in my apartment and being stuck with a long term tenancy.

Like other posters before you, you're limiting the choices to 'good AirBnB guests' or 'bad tenants'. They are not the only options.

Given the choice I would opt for good, long-term tenants as neighbours.

Given the choice, I would return the 2000+ AirBnB Dublin properties back to the long-term rental market.

Given the choice, I would opt to enforce change of use planning processes when landlords opt to repurpose properties for holiday lettings.

I'm not anti-AirBnB, I think it's a fairly fantastic way of using under-utilised accommodation. I just don't think it's appropriate to arbitrarily remove hundreds of millions of euro worth of housing stock.

Off the of my head I'd guess somewhere in the region of €700,000,000 - €1,000,000,000 worth of housing has been removed from the Dublin market alone to service the short-term holiday market.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

The main issue is not the type of guest AirBnB attracts, it's the arbitrary removal of vast quantities of housing stock for use as short-term holiday accommodation.

And LL becomes a LL make money not to house people.

How can you blame LL from maximising their investment and protecting their investment when long term tenants are basically untouchable.

If the government and people in general want airbnbs to go back to long term let units then LL's need to be put into a stronger position. Getting rid of non-paying tenants/bad tenants or tenants who are given legitimate notice to vacate and who refuse to go LL's should be able to be thrown out after a max of say 30 days. Tenants who owe back rent, damage repairs etc should have it taken directly from their wages/dole and not a token amount a significant amount. Mortgage interest relief should be increased to 100% and I also believe capital repayments should get at least some tax relief etc.

The above suggestions (and there are many more) would make long term letting much more attractive again. I also don't think a lot of LL's want to have the same tenants for 4 years and would prefer a bigger turn over so no one gets too comfortable there so again they prefer airbnb for this reason.

Graham

Saylor Gifted Mosque wrote: »

And LL aim is to make money not house people.

How can you blame LL from maximising their investment and protecting their investment when long term tenants are basically untouchable.

You must have misread my posts.

At no point did I blame the landlords. I can't say I really blame landlords for making a fast buck while they have the opportunity.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

You must have misread my posts.

At no point did I blame the landlords. I can't say I really blame landlords for making a fast buck while they have the opportunity.

Apologies, I assumed you were blaming LL for removing the housing stock.

It's highly unfair to prevent LLs from doing airbnb without improving the situation with long term lets though.

Graham

Saylor Gifted Mosque wrote: »

It's highly unfair to prevent LLs from doing airbnb without improving the situation with long term lets though.

It's completely fair.

While I agree that landlords receive fairly rough treatment, removing housing stock for short-term holiday accommodation is not the solution.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

It's completely fair.

While I agree that landlords receive fairly rough treatment, removing housing stock for short-term holiday accommodation is not the solution.

Its their property though and they should decide who its let to and how it's let, they would be fully entitled to leave it sit idle if they wished.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

It's completely fair.

While I agree that landlords receive fairly rough treatment, removing housing stock for short-term holiday accommodation is not the solution.

It is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The regime for landlords is so unappetising that may are avoiding it, if at all possible.

Graham

Saylor Gifted Mosque wrote: »

Its their property though and they should decide who its let to and how it's let, they would be fully entitled to leave it sit idle if they wished.

Within the planning laws that the owners and their neighbours should all be subject to. The current enforcement of those planning laws not withstanding.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The regime for landlords is so unappetising that may are avoiding it, if at all possible.

Correct. The solution is not to incentivise the conversion of housing stock to holiday accommodation. That's just addressing the symptoms.

testaccount123

Saylor Gifted Mosque wrote: »

Its their property though and they should decide who its let to and how it's let, they would be fully entitled to leave it sit idle if they wished.

Let's just do away with planning and zoning so. We'll allow people to built rubbish incinerators on their property too so, after all it's their property and they can do what they like with it

:rolleyes:

ckblackrock

Graham wrote: »

Like other posters before you, you're limiting the choices to 'good AirBnB guests' or 'bad tenants'. They are not the only options.

No, but for Airbnb landlords the choice is between full control and no control over what to do if you get a bad tenant. The choice is between a) the risk of having a tenant stop paying rent, trash your house, costing loss of income, legal fees and redecorating costs - and b) the absence of risk of a fully vetted Airbnb tenant who has no right to over-stay, and with Airbnb insurance into the bargain.