Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

Graham

hytrogen wrote: »

That "significant portion" are in such places as the market adapts to the supply available..

The supply isn't available, it's been taken from the long term housing stock against the terms of the granted planning permission and against the terms of the complexes involved.

beauf

Sharktopus wrote: »

36k is of course significant, however more info is needed on this figure - how many are in probate, are uninhabitable, are currently for sale etc.

The key point on the Airbnb properties is they are for the most part in prime locations that are in high demand.

Even without bnb they will still be high demand and not cheap. Hence prime location. Hi

Sharktopus

beauf wrote: »

Even without bnb they will still be high demand and not cheap.

Yes, but available as residential units, thus freeing up demand.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Even without bnb they will still be high demand and not cheap. Hence prime location. Hi

So you agree the prime location properties being discussed are in high demand, and are expensive but you don't think introducing 2,000 of them back to the long-term residential market will help?

beauf

Graham wrote: »

...you don't think introducing 2,000 of them back to the long-term residential market will help?

I didn't say it wouldn't help, but that it was overstated.

You keep trying to make strawman for some reason. Bonfire season I assume.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I didn't say it wouldn't help, but that it was overstated.

Overstated by whom? I've seen nobody who has quantified the effect it's likely to have.

beauf

Sharktopus wrote: »

Yes, but available as residential units, thus freeing up demand.

Freeing up is a relative term considering we have a housing crisis all over and not just in Central Dublin.

Graham

According to a recent report from PII there will be approximately 11,000 new housing completions across the entire country in 2016.

Anyone that suggests an additional 2,000 residential units in the most high-demand area in the Country is immaterial is ........ (answers on a postcard please).

beauf

Likewise why Banning AirBNB will solve the housing crisis.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Likewise why Banning AirBNB will solve the housing crisis.

An argument which nobody has put forward.

Claw Hammer

Having units in Air BnB reduces demand for hotel rooms. Taking units out of AirBnB is going to cause the price of hotel rooms to rise even more. That is going to reduce the number of tourists, which will impact on the revenues of many businesses which operate in Dublin City Centre. It is also going to be a source of complaint from business people who have to pay higher hotel rates, which of course adds to overheads. All in all planning enforcement will not be a priority until there are more hotel rooms available. In reality is will the up to management companies to control AirBnB in their own blocks.

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Having units in Air BnB reduces demand for hotel rooms. Taking units out of AirBnB is going to cause the price of hotel rooms to rise even more. That is going to reduce the number of tourists, which will impact on the revenues of many businesses which operate in Dublin City Centre. It is also going to be a source of complaint from business people who have to pay higher hotel rates, which of course adds to overheads.

I don't think much of that is disputed. Not sure I'd agree it's entirely down to property management companies to look after planning enforcement although they are likely to have the most immediate impact.

I don't think it's justification for converting residential accommodation into 'hotel-overflow' at the expense of the local population.

Claw Hammer

Graham wrote: »

I don't think much of that is disputed. Not sure I'd agree it's entirely down to property management companies to look after planning enforcement although they are likely to have the most immediate impact.

I don't think it's justification for converting residential accommodation into 'hotel-overflow' at the expense of the local population.

Justified or not, that is the reality.

Sharktopus

Graham wrote: »

I don't think any of that is disputed.

I don't think it's justification for converting residential accommodation into 'hotel-overflow' at the expense of the local population.

Airbnb could still be used as an overflow for hotels. Primary occupants can still rent out individual rooms or their whole property short term. This would be win-win for tourist sector and owners (and true to the original ethos of the site)

gaffer91

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Having units in Air BnB reduces demand for hotel rooms. Taking units out of AirBnB is going to cause the price of hotel rooms to rise even more. That is going to reduce the number of tourists, which will impact on the revenues of many businesses which operate in Dublin City Centre. It is also going to be a source of complaint from business people who have to pay higher hotel rates, which of course adds to overheads. All in all planning enforcement will not be a priority until there are more hotel rooms available. In reality is will the up to management companies to control AirBnB in their own blocks.

It's not the responsibility of locals to subsidise tourists.

Sharktopus

This was covered on Newstalk Drive earlier. Interview with someone whose life had been made a misery because of Airbnb rentals in his building. Crazy stuff altogether - descriptions of extreme anti-social behaviour by Airbnb guests.

The scary part is he mentioned that the apartments were being let out by a local hotel and the hotel staff were quite aggressive to him and dismissive of his concerns.

Interesting we have outfits like this http://www.thekeycollection.ie/ - which are basically using Airbnb style apartments as overflows for their hotels.

This is a serious encroachment of residential space by commercial entities...

gaffer91

beauf wrote: »

You're inferring it will have major impact, others are suggesting its not significant to the bigger picture.

It very similar to the championing for rent controls and increased regulation, as a means to reduce rent and protecting tenancy. When it just accelerated the opposite, when implemented in isolation.

Its why 36,000 vacant properties is a "handful" but '1500 to 2000 is significant and will have a major impact.

Despite the strawman, I don't think anyone is suggesting it won't have an impact. Rather its over stated.

The 36000 figure is actually interesting but the impact would depend on how many such homes were previously being rented out privately. If the vast majority were holiday homes then likely very few. Airbnb has been shown to be renting homes that were previously used for local renters, as the guy on the radio and Spencer Dock incidents have shown. That's not to say we shouldn't be doing more to get some of these 36000 homes into the market however.

Sharktopus

For those who want to hear the Newstalk segment on Airbnb. It begins at the 40 min mark http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/81889/31260/25th_October_2016_-_Newstalk_Drive_Part_1/

A good insight into actions being taken in New York to deal with the issue.

Interestingly host Chris Donohue mentioned that Airbnb was the reason he moved from his last rental accommodation.

pilly

There was another story on Joe Duffy last week where a couple were renting their house to a guy and he was running it as an Airbnb, nightmare for the neighbours and they were getting the complaints even though they didn't know about it.

daithi7

Graham wrote: »

I'm not inferring anything, you are.

I'm saying it.

The removal of 2000 AirBnB rentals in and around Dublin city centre and their subsequent return to the long-term residential market will have a significant positive impact on residential lettings in that area.

It's not a silver bullet solution to the current rental crisis but it will have an almost immediate and significant impact.

Jeez, how simplistic can you get!? Simon?!?

What makes you so certain that they will return to the 'long term residential market', whatever tf that is anyway?!

Many of that 2000 are probably sometime used apartments and the like in Dublin that are only in use by the owners on an occasional basis e.g. for work, investment, housing a student(son or daughter), to be near relations, etc, etc, etc. Airbnb provides a very handy way for property owners to rent their property to casual renters. What's wrong with that!? NADA. Furthermore, short term lettings allow property owners to retain some control and part time use of their property without the onerous obligations that come with being stuck in a long term lease with a tenant e.g. no owner use of the property, tenant issues, difficulties getting a tenant to leave, rent controls, etc, etc, etc

To my mind Airbnb is a perfect solution for a place like Dublin (& Ireland). Why? Cos it allows hard pressed property owners, who have had a really tumultuous last 8 years btw, with many in negative equity struggling to pay their mortgages, derive some much needed income from their very expensive assets, that they bought themselves, by providing an invaluable tourist and visitor resource in a city & county that lackis both hotels and sufficient short term accommodation to rent. (Just read that last sentence again & tell me this isn't a really useful innovation for Ireland's property owners, valuable visiting tourists and Ireland Inc!!!)

The only issues for me that the authorities should really be concerned about are how to facilitate such lettings without upsetting neighbours and neighborhoods excessively, and how to derive a sufficient tax income from this very worthwhile win win activity. Otherwise they should let property owners satisfy market demands in the ways they deem most appropriate for their and the market's needs. Why!? Cos that's the best, most efficient way to reach a continuously optimum solution (I.e. by using the market dynamics of supply, demand, suppliers, consumers, short term, long term and medium term). QED

daithi7

Btw has anyone asked what would happen if the lunatics trying to run the asylum succeeded in taking 2000 properties in Dublin off Airbnb and hence out of the short term rental market!?!? Who do these properties serve? Why is their such a market for them I wonder!?

The huge negative impacts on tourism and raisinging hotel rates, while simultaneously reducing airport traffic, car rentals, business in restaurants, bars, shops, & tourist tax receipts due to the resultant loss of these visitors Euro spend in Ireland! would be a complete own goal imho. And a totally avoidable overreaction to a few badly run casual rented places out of 2000.

Also arguably, by limiting the use of Airbnb type lettings in Dublin(& Ireland) you would be putting the city (& country) at a significant competitive disadvantage against other more sane & well run cities that allow the use of such innovations e.g. London, Paris, Manchester, Amsterdam, etc, etc, etc to serve some of their visitors genuine accommodation needs e.g. looking for a weekend break, let's go to Amsterdam cos we can get a nice apartment on the canal for the weekend on Airbnb versus only an excessively expensive hotel room in Dublin (if there wasn't an Airbnb facilitated casual letting market there) ditto for West Cork v Brittany, Clare v Scotland, Cork v Cornwall, etc, etc, etc

Now why the helll would anyone want to do that??
hey! Comrades!? :-)

RaulDublin

If i was a tourist I'd be unwilling to pay upwards 90 euros/day for rundown bed albeit in the city center.
I also think that a large part of the problem is hosts evading taxes and there being no way to enforce it unless Airbnb shared the information on hosts and their earnings with the local councils. Something which they should do if they aren't already ?
Banning would create short term issues but would also probably force to try find some answers to the housing mess .
..raul

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

I don't think it's justification for converting residential accommodation into 'hotel-overflow' at the expense of the local population.

The problem is that hotels and B&Bs are currently acting as local population overflows in the form of emergency accommodation. We have no idea what the airbnb ban will do to this part of the market. If tourist beds become scarcer through banning airbnb, the price of remaining tourist beds in hotels and real B&Bs will presumably increase due to reduced supply. This may entice hoteliers to remove their rooms from emergency accommodation schemes, thus forcing local authorities to rent accommodation in the private rental market, thus reducing supply in that market and driving up prices in the process.

The whole thing is sadly connected because there aren't enough places to live in the cities. This isn't an argument against the ban as I previously stated it's a nuisance for full time residents, but banning 2000 airbnb units will not return all those bed spaces to the rental sector as has been suggested above because hotels are in the emergency accommodation game.

sondagefaux

pilly wrote: »

There was another story on Joe Duffy last week where a couple were renting their house to a guy and he was running it as an Airbnb, nightmare for the neighbours and they were getting the complaints even though they didn't know about it.

It's not just the impact on neighbours that is an issue when someone sublets their rental property on Airbnb, although affecting a person's right to peaceful enjoyment of their property can result in lawsuits:

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR provides that:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for bylaw and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
Article 1 involves three distinct rules. Firstly, the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property is set out. Secondly, the deprivation of possessions is subject to certain conditions and thirdly, states are entitled, amongst other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose. The guarantee of the peaceful enjoyment of property or possessions provides the background for the other two rules.

http://www.nuigalway.ie/media/housinglawrightsandpolicy/Chapter-in-ECHR-and-Irish-Law-2nd.-ed-2009.pdf

If the Irish state fails to uphold the human rights of people to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, including through failure to enforce planning laws which constrain or remove potential nuisances, such as disturbance caused by Airbnb guests, then it opens itself up to being sued by property owners whose rights to peaceful enjoyment of their properties has been affected by use of nearby or neighbouring properties for Airbnb or other short-term letting arrangements.

In other words, the state has a positive obligation to ensure that everyone's right to peaceful enjoyment of their property is upheld, including by enforcing planning laws which help to uphold that right.

What happens if an Airbnb guest has an accident and sues? Would the landlord's third party liability insurance be affected?
What about planning issues? Is the property owner liable for breach of planning laws or the tenant who is subletting?

What about waste generated by Airbnb guests? Should that be considered as commercial waste or domestic waste?
What about the mortgage holder? In most cases, mortgage providers need to be informed that a mortgaged property is going to be rented out, which they will generally permit provided it is not sublet. If a mortgaged property is sublet without permission, the mortgage holder is within its rights to call in the mortgage, that is to require immediate repayment of the outstanding balance of the mortgage.

pilly

RaulDublin wrote: »

If i was a tourist I'd be unwilling to pay upwards 90 euros/day for rundown bed albeit in the city center.
I also think that a large part of the problem is hosts evading taxes and there being no way to enforce it unless Airbnb shared the information on hosts and their earnings with the local councils. Something which they should do if they aren't already ?
Banning would create short term issues but would also probably force to try find some answers to the housing mess .
..raul

Airbnb do report the income to revenue, they have to.

gaffer91

daithi7 wrote: »

What makes you so certain that they will return to the 'long term residential market', whatever tf that is anyway?!

Many of these properties are in residential areas e.g. Spencer Dock and were previously rented to long term tenants.

daithi7 wrote: »

Airbnb provides a very handy way for property owners to rent their property to casual renters.

No-one disputes that Airbnb is convenient, and beneficial for hosts and tourists. It's all the other issues that people have problems with. And it's not the responsibility of locals to ensure their cost of living goes up enormously so tourists have a cheaper holiday.

daithi7 wrote: »

What's wrong with that!? NADA.

Have you read any of this thread? Seriously. It has been pointed out probably 25 times what is wrong with it. It removes apartments from the long term private rental market, distorting it and driving up rents for locals. It turns people's apartment complexes into hostels. It breaches regulations as Airbnb hosts are using residential property for commercial purposes and are not complying with regulations their chief competitors must do.

Airbnb is good for hosts and tourists, terrible for locals in cities. Try to understand that.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

The problem is that hotels and B&Bs are currently acting as local population overflows in the form of emergency accommodation. We have no idea what the airbnb ban will do to this part of the market.

It is likely that some hotels will be redeveloped for the tourist market now it has picked up regardless of the current emergency accommodation customers

Limiting AirBnB would return long term residential property to the market which should counteract the return of city centre hotels to their original purpose/market.

It is likely to mean the state has to make other arrangements for emergency accommodation and such accommodation is unlikely to be in prime tourist areas.

Graham

daithi7 wrote: »

What makes you so certain that they will return to the 'long term residential market', whatever tf that is anyway?!

They are residential properties in residential developments that look like they will soon be removed from the short-term lettings market.

What do you think might happen to them?

beauf

gaffer91 wrote: »

Many of these properties are in residential areas e.g. Spencer Dock and were previously rented to long term tenants....

Purely anecdotal and from my own observations, I think a lot of them were long term empty. I still see lots of empty apartments around D.1/IFSC area. Probably too expensive.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I still see lots of empty apartments around D.1/IFSC area.

Probably waiting for the next AirBnB customers to arrive at the weekend.

Purely anecdotally of course.

Usually if an apartment is too expensive, the rent is reduced. There's no evidence at all to suggest there's hundreds of landlords keeping empty properties around the IFSC because of a lack of tenants willing to pay the rent being asked.