Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

sami2015

The interesting thing for me is can they legally make such a change.... and then have it apply retrospectively to all premises that already have short term letting (eg all "traditional" B&Bs that are in operation for 40 years.... will they be put out of business?)


Could this actually increase the value of properties who have been doing this "for years" aka the situation that exists for the Pre63 houses who were converted before planning rules were brought in in 63/64....



I do not have any property rented as Air BnB but I have been very thankful for Air BnBs at different stages over the last several years here in Dublin. I like to think that I did not cause any hassle for any of the neighbours who lived around the properties....



We need more houses but I think the renting of a cruise liner and letting people stay in Dublin Bay on that was a better solution than bringing in legislation to restrict short term letting!

Graham

sami2015 wrote: »

The interesting thing for me is can they legally make such a change.... and then have it apply retrospectively to all premises that already have short term letting (eg all "traditional" B&Bs that are in operation for 40 years.... will they be put out of business?)

There are no indications the proposals will apply to B&Bs

sami2015 wrote: »

Could this actually increase the value of properties who have been doing this "for years" aka the situation that exists for the Pre63 houses who were converted before planning rules were brought in in 63/64....

I guess it coul increase value for properties that have the appropriate planning permission for short-term lettings. Personally I doubt it will have much of an effect, AirBnB revenue has already been taken into account in the valuation of such properties.

Franz Von Peppercorn

chocolateair wrote: »

Ownership rates are significantly lower now. Census 2016 showed 67% ownership nationwide and just under 60% in urban areas.

Heading towards one of the lowest in Europe in fact.

Grumpypants

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

More housing stock for sale/rent will reduce prices. Whether that comes from increased building or former airbnb properties returned from the residential market doesn't matter. Obviously, returning these airbnb properties to the residential market isn't a magic bullet that will fix the crisis but it will help.

Weird, because in the housing boom around 2005 we were building more houses than at any other time in history and prices were skyrocketing.

AlmightyCushion

Grumpypants wrote: »

Weird, because in the housing boom around 2005 we were building more houses than at any other time in history and prices were skyrocketing.

It's really not weird. It's supply and demand. Back then there was huge supply but even more demand so prices went up.

Now, we still have hugh demand and lowish supply. Some of that supply is going to the airbnb market. If those properties going to the airbnb market went to the residential market as there were intended and are planned for then it would fulfill some of that supply and help put downward pressure on prices.

Do you honestly think that current price increases aren't due to a lack of supply? We built 93,000 houses in 2006, which was a 15% increase on the year before. Do you honestly think if we did that now that prices would skyrocket like they did back then?

Franz Von Peppercorn

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's really not weird. It's supply and demand. Back then there was huge supply but even more demand so prices went up.

Now, we still have hugh demand and lowish supply. Some of that supply is going to the airbnb market. If those properties going to the airbnb market went to the residential market as there were intended and are planned for then it would fulfill some of that supply and help put downward pressure on prices.

Do you honestly think that current price increases aren't due to a lack of supply? We built 93,000 houses in 2006, which was a 15% increase on the year before. Do you honestly think if we did that now that prices would skyrocket like they did back then?

It wasn’t just supply and demand in the recent boom. It was easy credit. If banks go from lending 3x income to 5-7x then prices inevitably will increase. Even if supply is ok.

Jet Black

They would be better of creating incentives to get people to rent out their properties long term. All this would do is reduce the supply of Airbnb meaning an increase in prices and leave the properties empty for 6 months of the year. This is more of the government blaming others and not actually doing anything to fix the problem.

GingerLily

Jet Black wrote: »

They would be better of creating incentives to get people to rent out their properties long term. All this would do is reduce the supply of Airbnb meaning an increase in prices and leave the properties empty for 6 months of the year. This is more of the government blaming others and not actually doing anything to fix the problem.

Can you explain why properties would be empty for 6 months of the year?

Jet Black

GingerLily wrote: »

Can you explain why properties would be empty for 6 months of the year?

From the journal link.

This means that people who own a second property (what some call an investment property) will not be able to rent it out. The maximum rental period is for a maximum of 180-days

GingerLily

Jet Black wrote: »

From the journal link.

In Toronto? Will it be the same here?

From the same article

"Housing committee’s report

A working group, set up by the department, was tasked with coming up with the best regulatory system for short-term lettings, however Murphy has been vocal about preferring the recommendations set down by the Joint Committee on Housing last year.

It differs somewhat to the Toronto rules, setting out a two level regulatory regime be introduced via primary legislation in relation to short-term lets with a strict regime of regulations targeted at entire property, short-term commercial lettings at one level, and a less stringent second level focused at those that rent out their own primary residence for a period of 90 days or less per year."

AlmightyCushion

Jet Black wrote: »

From the journal link.

The article I seen said they were banning short term letting for all non PPR. The 90 days limitation was on a person using their PPR for short term letting.

So, let's say you own 2 properties both of which do not have planning for short term letting. The one you live in, you could put up on AirBNB for a max of 90, 180 days or whatever the new regulations state. You would not be allowed to put the other property up on AirBNB at all.

Eric Cartman

GingerLily wrote: »

Can you explain why properties would be empty for 6 months of the year?

9 bank holidays, 52 weekends = 113 days, 67 days left so basically the whole summer and you can still keep your Airbnb.

Would probably still make financial sense to leave the building empty the rest of the time.

TheChizler

Eric Cartman wrote: »

9 bank holidays, 52 weekends = 113 days, 67 days left so basically the whole summer and you can still keep your Airbnb.

Would probably still make financial sense to leave the building empty the rest of the time.

Leave your PPR empty the rest of the time?

GingerLily

TheChizler wrote: »

Leave your PPR empty the rest of the time?

Then it wouldn't be a PPR!

I think they're talking about the Toronto rules

Eric Cartman

TheChizler wrote: »

Leave your PPR empty the rest of the time?

sorry I thought we were just talking about a 180 day general short term rent limit. Sure if its the PPR case just rent it out to college students long term for the rest of the time and you're sorted.

GingerLily

Eric Cartman wrote: »

sorry I thought we were just talking about a 180 day general short term rent limit. Sure if its the PPR case just rent it out to college students long term for the rest of the time and you're sorted.

I don't think this would be allowed either under what seems the new proposal would be (not the Toronto rules)

But

I think short term summer rentals for properties used for Student accommodation during the rest of the year seems very reasonable

TheChizler

GingerLily wrote: »

Then it wouldn't be a PPR!

I think they're talking about the Toronto rules

I'm not sure now... Carry on!

charman

Can't see it panning out.... Unfortunately.. Show me a TD that doesn't have at least a second home.

Graham

charman wrote: »

Can't see it panning out.... Unfortunately.. Show me a TD that doesn't have at least a second home.

According to the Irish Times the register of members interests in 2017 showed just over a quarter of TDs owned a rental property.

Were you trying to make a point relating to the AirBnB proposals somehow?

Samuel T. Cogley

Any update on the actual text of the legislation yet does anyone know?

TIA!

LotharIngum

I heard they are having a bit of trouble with it. Never stopped them before though

3DataModem

LotharIngum wrote: »

I heard they are having a bit of trouble with it. Never stopped them before though

It's not easy to write legislation in ireland restricting what you can lawfully do with property. Our constitution is pretty good at protecting property rights.

The longer term plan will be to use planning laws and beef up enforcement (i.e. use existing lawful frameworks), but they've indicated there's some short-term quick fix to tide us over... but passing a law saying 'you cannot accept money for short stays in property you own' is not going to be easy to draft with this sort of stuff in the constitution;

"1.2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property."

When you mess around with property rights you open yourself up to having laws challenged, and the major property owners doing short terms lets have lawyers and money.

There are apartments out there - all over Dublin - being short term let to corporates. The law is going to require these to be RTB registered which will change contracts, insurance, etc.

Basically; buckle up, incoming clusterf**k.

serfboard

3DataModem wrote: »

It's not easy to write legislation in ireland restricting what you can lawfully do with property. Our constitution is pretty good at protecting property rights.

The longer term plan will be to use planning laws and beef up enforcement (i.e. use existing lawful frameworks), but they've indicated there's some short-term quick fix to tide us over... but passing a law saying 'you cannot accept money for short stays in property you own' is not going to be easy to draft with this sort of stuff in the constitution;

"1.2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property."

I wish people would read and reproduce the full article 43 of the constitution, which actually reads as follows:

Bunreacht na h&#201 wrote: »

PRIVATE PROPERTY

ARTICLE 43

1 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

Do not buy-in to the propaganda perpetuated by the landlord politicians and their allies who, by selectively quoting 43.1.2, throw their hands in the air and say: "See, there's nothing that can be done - it's in the constitution".

43.2.1 and 43.2.2 mean that the State can do what it wants when it is for the common good - and that includes CPOing properties, when required.

After all, we CPO land to build roads - the same principle can apply to CPOing vacant properties.

So why hasn't the State done it? Because FF/FG haven't wanted to.

STB.

serfboard wrote: »

After all, we CPO land to build roads - the same principle can apply to CPOing vacant properties.

No it cannot.

I suggest you read up on your legislation (1757 onwards).

CPOing was brought in for public infrastructure for the economic common good. Its uses can not be extended to secure other peoples properties for housing purposes!

And the first two provisions in the constitution regarding PRIVATE PROPERTY outweigh the other two. Common good AGAIN refers to items of major infrastructure not commandeering peoples houses to rehouse other people.

Visconti

3DataModem wrote: »

It's not easy to write legislation in ireland restricting what you can lawfully do with property. Our constitution is pretty good at protecting property rights.

The longer term plan will be to use planning laws and beef up enforcement (i.e. use existing lawful frameworks), but they've indicated there's some short-term quick fix to tide us over... but passing a law saying 'you cannot accept money for short stays in property you own' is not going to be easy to draft with this sort of stuff in the constitution;

"1.2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property."

When you mess around with property rights you open yourself up to having laws challenged, and the major property owners doing short terms lets have lawyers and money.

There are apartments out there - all over Dublin - being short term let to corporates. The law is going to require these to be RTB registered which will change contracts, insurance, etc.

Basically; buckle up, incoming clusterf**k.

Good at protecting property rights ? You have obviously never been a landlord who has to drive past a property where you are being slaughtered with interest from the bank, paying every conceivable tax that the government want to hit you with and having a non paying tenant living there for months while you pay the mortgage from your own pocket. This government is good a protecting corrupt bankers and the leeches of society. The decent working person has no property rights.

Eric Cartman

serfboard wrote: »

I wish people would read and reproduce the full article 43 of the constitution, which actually reads as follows:Do not buy-in to the propaganda perpetuated by the landlord politicians and their allies who, by selectively quoting 43.1.2, throw their hands in the air and say: "See, there's nothing that can be done - it's in the constitution".

43.2.1 and 43.2.2 mean that the State can do what it wants when it is for the common good - and that includes CPOing properties, when required.

After all, we CPO land to build roads - the same principle can apply to CPOing vacant properties.

So why hasn't the State done it? Because FF/FG haven't wanted to.

I feel like I'm reading Marx/Stalin here. Thats not how it works.

Visconti

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I feel like I'm reading Marx/Stalin here. Thats not how it works.

Thats how a certain element of person wants it to work. The concept of Effort "v" Reward is inconceivable. The country NO the WORLD owes them.

L1011

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I feel like I'm reading Marx/Stalin here. Thats not how it works.

Dublin City Council *do* CPO vacant properties; albeit to flip almost immediately. They published another list of 5 last week.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-planning/derelict-sites

robp

serfboard wrote: »

robp wrote: »

So looking at the map it seems that Airbnb is used in the core city centre where tourists want to stay and residents don't.

And your evidence for that is what, exactly?

robp wrote: »

reduce the planning red tape and taxes that developers face

Yes indeed - we need to reduce regulations and taxes for property developers. :rolleyes:

I am not sure why you are rolling eyes. Tax always discourages an activity. Developers are not some kind of public enemy that needs to be perscuted, they are are providing a vital service that is in dire short supply. Tiered tax breaks that incentivize high density city construction with the highest tiers availble for highly efficient apartments would be ideal. With NZEB building standards looming towards us the cost construction is probably going to get higher so why not fight it with tax breaks.

serfboard

STB. wrote: »

And the first two provisions in the constitution regarding PRIVATE PROPERTY outweigh the other two.

Says who? You?

STB. wrote: »

Common good AGAIN refers to items of major infrastructure

Oh really? Items of major infrastructure only? Where in the constitution does it say that?