Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

To quote you "It's an insane move interfering in how a property owner tries to make some money from his property" so by that logic, they should be able to open a nightclub beside you.

Within reason, operating an airbnb is a reasonable use of a house or apartment as it is being used in a very similar way to if it was say a houseshare.

A person operating a small business from home I would also consider very reasonable, say an accountant etc.

Opening a night club is a totally different ball game completely and just cannot be compared. It would be totally impractical and never happen anyway so its pointless to even use it as an example.

Graham

Mod Note

Off topic posts deleted

AlmightyCushion

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

That must be the Irish definition of enforcement.

We're basing this legislation on Canada so Canadian too. Regardless, I thought you didn't have a problem with enforcement. This is enforcement. So, why do you have an issue?

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

Within reason, operating an airbnb is a reasonable use of a house or apartment as it is being used in a very similar way to if it was say a houseshare.

A person operating a small business from home I would also consider very reasonable, say an accountant etc.

Opening a night club is a totally different ball game completely and just cannot be compared. It would be totally impractical and never happen anyway so its pointless to even use it as an example.

I think the term used is change of use. An accountant operating a small business from the property providing they lived there wouldn't be considered a change of use and would be fine. However, someone setting up an accounting company in a residential house where it is used solely for the business is a change of use and would be in breech of the planning.

This is the same. If you want to put a room in your house up as an airbnb, you can. Same as if you want to use it as a home office for your accountancy business. If you want to rent the whole place as an airbnb, you can't just like you can't turn your whole house into an accountancy office.

phunkadelic

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

We're basing this legislation on Canada so Canadian too. Regardless, I thought you didn't have a problem with enforcement. This is enforcement. So, why do you have an issue?

The issue is he uses Airbnb to rent out a property. The for and against for this legislation can more or less be divided like this:
-Property owners that use airbnb to rent out their property are against
-Everyone else is for

robp

phunkadelic wrote: »

The issue is he uses Airbnb to rent out a property. The for and against for this legislation can more or less be divided like this:
-Property owners that use airbnb to rent out their property are against
-Everyone else is for

That is a very strong statement to make and I dont see evidence for it. I know the free market organisation the Hibernia Forum have come out in favour of Airbnb rights. I imagine they would have a lot of popular support too.

phunkadelic

phunkadelic wrote: »

The issue is he uses Airbnb to rent out a property. The for and against for this legislation can more or less be divided like this:
-Property owners that use airbnb to rent out their property are against
-Everyone else is for

This is totally wrong imo. I would think the majority of people in the country would be against this interfering.

The vast majority of property owners would be in favour of having the control to airbnb their property if they wish, many others just dont agree with the gov interfering and then you have all the tourists who use airbnb even within Ireland. loads of people from around the country use airbnb when they visit dublin or other cities for example.

I don't let property on airbnb and I am totally against the proposals as are a number of other posters here who also don't let property on airbnb.

Bluefoam

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

This is totally wrong imo. I would think the majority of people in the country would be against this interfering.

The vast majority of property owners would be in favour of having the control to airbnb their property if they wish, many others just dont agree with the gov interfering and then you have all the tourists who use airbnb even within Ireland. loads of people from around the country use airbnb when they visit dublin or other cities for example.

I don't let property on airbnb and I am totally against the proposals as are a number of other posters here who also don't let property on airbnb.

There is a difference between airbnb'ing your primary residence & buying properties specifically to use as airbnb properties.

The latter is a hotel...

GingerLily

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

This is totally wrong imo. I would think the majority of people in the country would be against this interfering.

The vast majority of property owners would be in favour of having the control to airbnb their property if they wish, many others just dont agree with the gov interfering and then you have all the tourists who use airbnb even within Ireland. loads of people from around the country use airbnb when they visit dublin or other cities for example.

I don't let property on airbnb and I am totally against the proposals as are a number of other posters here who also don't let property on airbnb.

I am totally for this legislation, I'm for any legislation that helps people live in cities, and I no longer rent so it won't directly affect me.

Chiparus

Should push up hotel room prices

GingerLily

Chiparus wrote: »

Should push up hotel room prices

Good thing we're building more hotels!


Residential properties shouldn't be the solution to any tourism problems.

listermint

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

Within reason, operating an airbnb is a reasonable use of a house or apartment as it is being used in a very similar way to if it was say a houseshare.

A person operating a small business from home I would also consider very reasonable, say an accountant etc.

Opening a night club is a totally different ball game completely and just cannot be compared. It would be totally impractical and never happen anyway so its pointless to even use it as an example.

Renting a house or apartment out like it is a holiday let for shorts stays amongst other residential renters who live permanently in he area is not a genuine use of the property it's a nuisance and I've yet to see a landlord who would live next door to one.

Visconti

Pkiernan wrote: »

Shocking that you think its okay for governement to dictate what i can do with my property just because they won't do the right thing and build homes.

I'm lucky that my unit is mortgage free. It'll remain empty now.

I've never gouged a tenant and just had one leave that cost me 17000 euro in unpaid rent and damage. That was 4 years post tax rental income.

No way I'll rent it again. I'll leave it empty and watch it appreciate and not have to worry about overholding tenants.

Thinking strongly of selling up myself. Soon the overholding tenants wont have to move till there is a house for them to move into to try to keep the government's fake figures even faker. Being a landlord is a fools game with the stress, tax, ridiculous rules and regulations set out by government that clearly favour the tenant.

listermint

Visconti wrote: »

Thinking strongly of selling up myself. Soon the overholding tenants wont have to move till there is a house for them to move into to try to keep the government's fake figures even faker. Being a landlord is a fools game with the stress, tax, ridiculous rules and regulations set out by government that clearly favour the tenant.

More house for the market so

SusanC10

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

This is totally wrong imo. I would think the majority of people in the country would be against this interfering.

The vast majority of property owners would be in favour of having the control to airbnb their property if they wish, many others just dont agree with the gov interfering and then you have all the tourists who use airbnb even within Ireland. loads of people from around the country use airbnb when they visit dublin or other cities for example.

I don't let property on airbnb and I am totally against the proposals as are a number of other posters here who also don't let property on airbnb.

Agree. Also against these proposals and interfering.
We don't let out property on Airbnb but we use Airbnb when we go on City breaks to other European Cities - would be lost without it as much less expensive than Hotels especially when travelling as a family plus added advantage of self-catering if necessary. We use the "Entire Place" option as don't want to share with Owner while on holidays.
Would imagine it will make Dublin less attractive for lots of Tourists especially those needing more than 1 Hotel room.
Also have used it in coastal Irish areas twice - again very affordable. Don't know what will happen to these Houses - will they be outlawed too ?
We have booked a place in Donegal for mid-term.

Visconti

SusanC10 wrote: »

Agree. Also against these proposals and interfering.
We don't let out property on Airbnb but we use Airbnb when we go on City breaks to other European Cities - would be lost without it as much less expensive than Hotels especially when travelling as a family plus added advantage of self-catering if necessary. We use the "Entire Place" option as don't want to share with Owner while on holidays.
Would imagine it will make Dublin less attractive for lots of Tourists especially those needing more than 1 Hotel room.
Also have used it in coastal Irish areas twice - again very affordable. Don't know what will happen to these Houses - will they be outlawed too ?
We have booked a place in Donegal for mid-term.

Will make Ireland undesirable in many ways. I have met lots of business people who use air bnb instead of hotels.
This measure will just force cash strapped landlords to rent the properties they invested in to people they dont want to rent them to. The very people our government wont house. Would love to see a huge amount of landlords sell up I have a few properties and am seriously considering it lets see what the government does then. As a genuine decent landord who has been burned in the past I still treat people with total respect but I feel bullied by the Irish state and their farcical way of dealing with THEIR housing problem. Its not my fault its not air bnb fault .

fergus1001

Kailani Creamy Bobcat wrote:

This is totally wrong imo. I would think the majority of people in the country would be against this interfering.

it's not interference though, if you have an air b and b you need to apply for planning permission to use your residence to do so, it's just legislation to reinforce what is already there

people crying over spilt milk that has been spilt years ago

serfboard

STB. wrote: »

You can add to that the generation that have never worked a day in their lives and expect everything to be handed to them for free.

Quite right. The problem in this country is that we simply don't treat our poor harshly enough.:rolleyes:

Viscount Aggro

Do you reckon theres many AirBnb places around the IFSC?
Because I noticed a key drop and laundry business in Mayor Square - could this be for servicing such units?
They will likely close down.

On another point - the original model for AirBnb is no more. It was meant to be cheap, share a couch in someones place.
Looking at map of Dublin, an I dont see cheap house / room shares. I mean e20 range. Thats all I will pay.

L1011

Staycity, who have units with appropriate planning, have an office on Mayor Square. Not aware of any other places dedicated to that but you can just look at the site and see plenty of listings.

Pkiernan

GingerLily wrote: »

I am totally for this legislation, I'm for any legislation that helps people live in cities, and I no longer rent so it won't directly affect me.

You should be forced to take a lodger in to your house.

Samuel T. Cogley

serfboard wrote: »

Quite right. The problem in this country is that we simply don't treat our poor harshly enough.:rolleyes:

We don't, and on the other hand we don't support people trying to pull themselves up by their boot straps. 10 years of no work should result in you being given the option of renting privately with no assistance or living in a shipping container in Leitrim. I'm fed up subsadising people that can't be arsed. I'm quite happy to support people who genuinely can't work.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

More house for the market so

For the owner occupier market. Rents will continue to rise as landlord exit the market, that is patently obvious.

TheChizler

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

For the owner occupier market. Rents will continue to rise as landlord exit the market, that is patently obvious.

Is it? If the new owner occupier exits the rental market then there is a drop in both demand and supply. Why will rents only rise as a consequence?

GingerLily

Pkiernan wrote: »

You should be forced to take a lodger in to your house.

Why? So I can be a bitter landlord? Nah, I'm alright

Samuel T. Cogley

TheChizler wrote: »

Is it? If the new owner occupier exits the rental market then there is a drop in both demand and supply. Why will rents only rise as a consequence?

Why do you, and others here insist on believing the number of renters and owner occupiers is some how static? New entrants to the market will typically rent, at least as long as it take for a sale to go through, probably a lot longer.

Eric Cartman

serfboard wrote: »

Quite right. The problem in this country is that we simply don't treat our poor harshly enough.:rolleyes:

You're not wrong, no incentive to do anything , sure laze about the house, become a career criminal, indiscriminately have as many children as you like, maybe develop a drinking problem , the state will take care of you from cradle to grave as you make everyone around you look down on you more and more until that wooden box finally goes in the ground.

But dare you even try to work hard, buy a Dublin apartment, buy yourself another house and rather than get caught in that trap where you let it out to one of the above, they stop paying rent and it takes you 12 months to get them out, with a lovely 30 grand in damage kiss goodbye, you decide to list it on a website, providing tourists nice accommodation at a discounted price , earn yourself a bit of money playing hotel manager being nice to Americans while checking them in and wash a fresh set of towels every few days, nah thats illegal and the state wants to do everything it can to stop you, mostly because of pressure being put on them by powerful union and left wing lobbies that use the above people as foot soldiers in their disruption army, promising their little drink and drug riddled minds free houses in leafy south Dublin suburbs that those who work will have to cough up for with a slice of their 9-5 and slog of a commute from Ashbourne and Gorey in a car the government also says they shouldn't have.

Samuel T. Cogley

GingerLily wrote: »

Why? So I can be a bitter landlord? Nah, I'm alright

No becuase there is a housing crisis on and private property is regualted for the common good. While I don't agree with forcing a lodger on someone, the sentiment is correct - time for a empty bed room tax. After all we all want to do our bit right?

And while were about it we need to ensure that people in larger than they need units of social housing get moved on too.

TheChizler

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Why do you, and others here insist on believing the number of renters and owner occupiers is some how static?

Did I say that?

Samuel T. Cogley

TheChizler wrote: »

Did I say that?

Yes you did.

You did the maths wrong assumming one more owner = one less renter, it doesn't.

There is a cohort of buyers who are living in shared accomodation/with parents. If they buy the property it's one less rental full stop.

TheChizler

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yes you did.

You did the maths wrong assumming one more owner = one less renter, it doesn't.

There is a cohort of buyers who are living in shared accomodation/with parents. If they buy the property it's one less rental full stop.

I'd be appreciative if you could point out where I specified any numbers.

An AirBnB property only provides capacity to the tourism market. By removing it from this market it it will provide supply to either the rental or residential market, two markets that are under huge demand at the moment (unless the owner is one of the few who decides to leave it empty for some reason).

If it goes to the residential market it will likely be removing pressure from the rental market as well.

If the new owners are brand new to either market as you say (the minority of people I'd imagine) then it will only reduce demand on the residential market. There is no net change to the rental market so why would this cause rents to increase? It was never on the rental market to begin with.

Either way there's a benefit to the general housing market.

Edit: and it's not as if those new entrants living at home have just upped and decided to buy one day, most would have been trying to either rent or buy for some time.