Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

Balmed Out

My own house has a planning clause that its not to be used for short term lets, is that common? House approximately 17 years old.

I think airBnb has to be better regulated simply as too many are suffering from loud partying holidaymakers in whats supposed to be private residential areas. In the medium term theres not enough commercial beds so would some sort of compensation for neighbors be an idea. In this case, bearing in mind im not from Dublin, I would have thought no where in Ireland more suitable for AirBnb then Temple bar?

beauf

seamus wrote: »

I do agree to a certain extent - in theory we should have plenty of housing "left over" from the boom. But we don't, for a variety of reasons such as inadequate planning to abandoned estates.

But this current shortage has been in existence for about 3 years. And even then it's only been quite obviously at a critical level for 18 months to 2 years.

And building output has been on the up since the start of 2013. We are now building more than twice as many properties as we were then.

But the majority of properties coming available right now, started the whole process 2-3 years ago - when demand was half what it is now. So in order to catch up with rising demand, there is a significant lag period. As demand continues to rise, output will too, but lags behind by a couple of years. Hence another ~3 years before we'll see any reckonable easing off in the shortage.

I think that's being a bit economical with the figures. ...

2016

FIGURES RECENTLY RELEASED by the Department of the Environment show that local authorities built just 75 social housing units during the whole of 2015 – the lowest on the official record, which dates back to 1970.

http://www.thejournal.ie/64-local-authority-social-housing-houses-built-in-2015-alan-kelly-2747473-May2016/

http://trinitynews.ie/the-government-response-to-the-housing-crisis/

beauf

gaffer91 wrote: »

...It's what proportion of what would otherwise be private rented accommodation that is instead being leased on Airbnb. I would wager this is significantly higher. And yes, it is distorting the market. ...

People might consider a short term rental, but would never do longer term rentals because its an entirely different risk and business.

Longer term rentals are not attractive to many Landlords. It might be time to consider why.

foggy_lad

Balmed Out wrote: »

My own house has a planning clause that its not to be used for short term lets, is that common? House approximately 17 years old.

Yes very common.

I think airBnb has to be better regulated simply as too many are suffering from loud partying holidaymakers in whats supposed to be private residential areas. In the medium term theres not enough commercial beds so would some sort of compensation for neighbors be an idea. In this case, bearing in mind im not from Dublin, I would have thought no where in Ireland more suitable for AirBnb then Temple bar?

Temple bar is supposed to be a residential area!

beauf

gaffer91 wrote: »

...New York has just banned advertising short term leases today. This is fantastic and will hopefully be emulated worldwide.

"The bill prohibits online apartment listings that last under 30 days"

but another recent study illustrates that nearly 30% of Airbnb's offerings in New York are from hosts with multiple listings

Airbnb bans hosts with multiple listings in SF

San Francisco law allows homeowners to rent out only their own home. Since no one can reside in more than one home, having more than one listing on the site is a red flag.
Informal hacker hostels, which cram temporary renters into bunk beds, often six or more to a room, are a phenomenon of the recent housing crunch and may violate planning, zoning and building codes. Many hostels relied on Airbnb’s worldwide reach and its systems for booking and collecting payments. Airbnb still lists a few hostels that appear to be operating out of houses or apartments and said it continues to manually remove ones that are illicit.
Airbnb has taken similar steps to remove illegal listings in New York.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Airbnb-bans-hosts-with-multiple-listings-in-SF-9982303.php

Graham

beauf wrote: »

People might consider a short term rental, but would never do longer term rentals because its an entirely different risk and business.

Longer term rentals are not attractive to many Landlords.

In such cases I would expect a sudden curtailment of AirBnB would return many these properties to the market where they would be purchased for owner occupation or by less risk averse investors.

beauf wrote: »

Longer term rentals are not attractive to many Landlords. It might be time to consider why.

Can't argue with that.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

"The bill prohibits online apartment listings that last under 30 days"
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Airbnb-bans-hosts-with-multiple-listings-in-SF-9982303.php

The SF proposals sound like a reasonable balance and would appear much better aligned with AirBnBs 'sharing' ethos.

the latest change comes as the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday began to consider legislation to limit short-term rentals to 60 days a year regardless of whether the host is present.

beauf

Graham wrote: »

In such cases I would expect a sudden curtailment of AirBnB would return many these properties to the market where they would be purchased for owner occupation or by less risk averse investors.

I doubt it. I would suspect most of these aren't interested in the long term rental market. There's an idea in peoples head, that long term renting is a honey pot, and that people and big investors, vulture funds, are falling over themselves to get into it. They aren't. IMO.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I doubt it. I would suspect most of these aren't interested in the long term rental market. There's an idea in peoples head, that long term renting is a honey pot, and that people and big investors, vulture funds, are falling over themselves to get into it. They aren't. IMO.

In which case ex-airbnb apartments are destined for owner occupation. They're not likely to be left empty while the current owners/head-tenants sulk.

P.S. I'm certainly not one of the people that think long-term renting is a honey pot.

beauf

That will do little for the housing crisis.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

That will do little for the housing crisis.

Hundreds of properties returning to the residential market certainly won't hurt.

beauf

I think the majority are are already in the residential market only People can't afford to buy them. So why not rent them in the short term. No AirBnB. They'll sit empty.

Time will tell.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/census-2016-number-of-vacant-houses-scandalous-1.2722435

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I think the majority are are already in the residential market only People can't afford to buy them. So why not rent them in the short term. No AirBnB. They'll sit empty.

Time will tell.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/census-2016-number-of-vacant-houses-scandalous-1.2722435

I bet not many of the 260,000 empty properties mentioned in that article are in the parts of central Dublin popular with AirBnBers.

There was an interesting quote at the end of the article form Dr Lorcan Sirr, lecturer in housing studies and urban economics

“The other thing that’s an outlier from the previous census is the rise of [short-term letting website] Airbnb. They can’t not have an impact,” he said.

beauf

No doubt. I just think its over stated.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I just think its over stated.

Based on anything in particular or just a hunch?

beauf

Graham wrote: »

I bet not many of the 260,000 empty properties mentioned in that article are in the parts of central Dublin popular with AirBnBers....

Are these areas normally associated with comfortable rents or first time buyers...

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Are these areas normally associated with comfortable rents or first time buyers...

Normally associated with young professionals working in the area who are now finding what were once uncomfortable rents are turning downright painful.

newacc2015

gaffer91 wrote: »

It's not the percentage of the overall housing stock that is an issue- this includes family homes which are not going to be sold for decades, social housing etc. It's what proportion of what would otherwise be private rented accommodation that is instead being leased on Airbnb. I would wager this is significantly higher. And yes, it is distorting the market.

Your points about Vulture funds (not sure where this came from) and bedsits are irrelevant. People can argue for or against these things, but they have no impact on whether banning Airbnb short term leasing would in and of itself be a good thing- the answer to that is a resounding yes. New York has just banned advertising short term leases today. This is fantastic and will hopefully be emulated worldwide.

You kept saying it is "market distorting", but having nothing to back it up. Nothing at all. Or that figures you have made up and constantly keep saying it "market distorting".

You had an issue with around 500m worth of housing being used for Airbnb. Yet when I raise the fact tens of billions of Irish housing is being owned tax free by dodgy funds, you dont see it as relevant? Why is it unacceptable for an property to be used as an Airbnb paying around 50% plus VAT, but ok for a dodgy fund to own billions of property without paying tax?

My point about bedsits is that removing 5.3k units of housing is in fact "market distorting". Yet you are really going to say it is irrelevant? You are rattling on about how 2.5K airbnbs are distorting the market, yet the Government removed 5.3K housing units and you are really going to this is irrelevant to the housing shortage?!?!?! The Government themselves admitting banning bedsits contributed to the housing crisis.

Cities which are banning Airbnb all have housing shortages. The City authorities are not building enough housing like Dublin. They are banning Airbnb to pretend they are doing something about the housing crisis, when in fact they need to build housing. DCC could ban Airbnbs which in your opinion would be "fantastic". Now tell me where DCC are going to get the other 7.5k housing units Dublin City needs each year(Dublin needs around 10k units a year)?

I think any this of argue on banning Airbnbs is based on the facts. You dont seem to care about the quantity of Airbnbs in the city or that fact there are far less than the amount of housing units that were bedsits.

Sharktopus

newacc2015 wrote: »

You kept saying it is "market distorting", but having nothing to back it up. Nothing at all. Or that figures you have made up and constantly keep saying it "market distorting".

You had an issue with around 500m worth of housing being used for Airbnb. Yet when I raise the fact tens of billions of Irish housing is being owned tax free by dodgy funds, you dont see it as relevant? Why is it unacceptable for an property to be used as an Airbnb paying around 50% plus VAT, but ok for a dodgy fund to own billions of property without paying tax?

My point about bedsits is that removing 5.3k units of housing is in fact "market distorting". Yet you are really going to say it is irrelevant? You are rattling on about how 2.5K airbnbs are distorting the market, yet the Government removed 5.3K housing units and you are really going to this is irrelevant to the housing shortage?!?!?! The Government themselves admitting banning bedsits contributed to the housing crisis.

Cities which are banning Airbnb all have housing shortages. The City authorities are not building enough housing like Dublin. They are banning Airbnb to pretend they are doing something about the housing crisis, when in fact they need to build housing. DCC could ban Airbnbs which in your opinion would be "fantastic". Now tell me where DCC are going to get the other 7.5k housing units Dublin City needs each year(Dublin needs around 10k units a year)?

I think any this of argue on banning Airbnbs is based on the facts. You dont seem to care about the quantity of Airbnbs in the city or that fact there are far less than the amount of housing units that were bedsits.

The 5.3k figure for bedsits was for all of Ireland, not just Dublin. The 2800 Airbnb figure that was referenced on Prime Time was just for Dublin. It would be a fair guess to assume that the Airbnb numbers for the country would around twice that similar to the bedsit number.

The problem is that Airbnb is growing exponentially. They experienced 187% growth in Ireland between 2015/16 and are looking to increase this going forward. When the financial rewards of going Airbnb are much greater than servicing the residential market of course more owners will go this route.

Anyone living in Dublin City centre will have seen it. There are very few apartment blocks in the city that are untouched by it.

Agree with you on building houses. But this is a multi-faceted problem, and there's no point filling a bucket that has a leak in it.

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

You kept saying it is "market distorting", but having nothing to back it up. Nothing at all. Or that figures you have made up and constantly keep saying it "market distorting".

A 2 bedroom apartment worth €270,000 based on comparable properties was being sold for €425,000 largely because of the €79,000 AirBnB income the property had generated in the previous year.

That fits the definition of 'market distorting'.

Taco Chips

As if we should be striving to return to the days of bedsits. Many were in abhorrent condition; leaking, mouldy, cold, cramped. "Suitable for young people" as an ultimate insult. Most were neglected, run by cowboys and an utter rip off. Good riddance.

Tigger

Taco Chips wrote: »

As if we should be striving to return to the days of bedsits. Many were in abhorrent condition; leaking, mouldy, cold, cramped. "Suitable for young people" as an ultimate insult. Most were neglected, run by cowboys and an utter rip off. Good riddance.

I lived in bedsits and while they weren't ideal they were a way for port single people to have somewhere to live alone
Nowadays they have to live with other people

foggy_lad

Taco Chips wrote: »

As if we should be striving to return to the days of bedsits. Many were in abhorrent condition; leaking, mouldy, cold, cramped. "Suitable for young people" as an ultimate insult. Most were neglected, run by cowboys and an utter rip off. Good riddance.

The bedsits being banned was more a European direction because even the most salubrious of bedsits is still only suitable for short term emergency accommodation of up to 3 months. Any longer than that and the tenant(s) must be considered and counted as being homeless.

Here in Ireland people were living in poky dog-box bedsits with mouldy walls and damp dirty toilets and the poorest cooking facilities for 10years+.

sondagefaux

Tigger wrote: »

Taco Chips wrote: »

As if we should be striving to return to the days of bedsits. Many were in abhorrent condition; leaking, mouldy, cold, cramped. "Suitable for young people" as an ultimate insult. Most were neglected, run by cowboys and an utter rip off. Good riddance.

I lived in bedsits and while they weren't ideal they were a way for port single people to have somewhere to live alone
Nowadays they have to live with other people

If you had to share a communal bathroom and toilet, and perhaps communal cooking facilities (some 'bedsits' I visited were in buildings with a shared kitchen), or shared laundry facilities (don't remember any of the bedsits with a washing machine that wasn't communal) with other people, in what sense did you live alone?
If you have an en-suite bedroom in a shared house, and room for a fridge (with freezer compartment), microwave and hotplate in that bedroom, you probably have as much privacy as you would have had in a bedsit. Just because you live in a shared house with a shared living room doesn't mean you have to use the living room...

Sharktopus

I think the bedsit argument is a non-starter. It's not a like for like comparison. When you look at the quality of the apartments on Airbnb and other short term sites it's clear that these are for the most part high quality apartments suitable for professionals.

beauf

While that is true. It's one of many things that has reduced the housing stock. None of which have been balanced by initiatives to increase the housing stock and rental properties in particular. People suggested bedsits would be converted into higher quality rentals. Which predictability didn't happen. AirBnb is another straw on the camel's back. Banning it is yet another thing that won't fix the supply problem. It does need tighter controls for a variety of reasons.

The govt inaction on simple things like fixing the prtb seems to be completely ignoredn here, likewise using hotels and b&bs as social housing as indication of a crisis. What crisis?

Sharktopus

beauf wrote: »

The govt inaction on simple things like fixing the prtb seems to be completely ignoredn here, likewise using hotels and b&bs as social housing as indication of a crisis. What crisis?

I think the government and official Ireland still see renting as a secondary form of existence. That has allowed the rental situation to spiral out of control - they just don't see it as a priority. Supply is key long term - but the whole rental situation needs to be addressed urgently. Airbnb is one of many areas that's needs fixing, but it's something that can be done relatively quickly. Returning 2800 properties to the Dublin market would at least give some breathing room at a time of crisis.

murphaph

Sharktopus wrote: »

I think the government and official Ireland still see renting as a secondary form of existence. That has allowed the rental situation to spiral out of control - they just don't see it as a priority. Supply is key long term - but the whole rental situation needs to be addressed urgently. Airbnb is one of many areas that's needs fixing, but it's something that can be done relatively quickly. Returning 2800 properties to the Dublin market would at least give some breathing room at a time of crisis.

Sounds simple but hotel rooms are also at record low levels of availability. Now, remove the airbnb option and even fewer hotel rooms become available so the state has to rent more private dwellings for emergency accommodation, rather than hotels and b&bs, further reducing the housing supply to ordinary working punters.

beauf

I can see why people don't want their residential area turned into a pseudo hotel. I can see why long term multi rentals through AirBnB is a bad idea. Thats about 50% of them. Maybe more maybe less. But anyone I know is doing it very short term are probably the rest. They aren't Landlords. If they were blocked from AirBnB I don't think any of them would decide to become a Landlord with all that entitles. They'd just simply stop. That's why I think its very optimistic thinking it will have a major impact on the shortage. Also theres a lot of city centre development in progress and startings. There are cranes all over the docklands. All that office space will put even more pressure on transport and housing in these central locations. The girdlock and traffic will push more people into the city centre rather than commuting. its the perfect storm.

Sharktopus

The aim is not to remove Airbnb altogether. A primary occupant should still be able to rent out a room or even the full property for a very short term (eg when they are away on holidays). This is a handy tool for overflow during times of high tourist capacity, gives owners a new revenue stream and is true to the original ethos of Airbnb.

The problem is the rapid growth of purely commercial Airbnb activity, when whole units are permanently removed from the rental market.