Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

awec

titan18 wrote: »

They were part of the market until regulation drove them out, and government agencies telling tenants to overhold.

There was the possibility of bringing them back in with an actual common sense approach but all this does is drive them out for good.

No it doesn't, properties just do not vanish.

The owners might leave for good by selling up, but that's what we want to see.

listermint

titan18 wrote: »

If current planning laws are already there that stops this, why aren't those enforced? Why are we introducing more regulation to stop it if the current ones there should be doing it?

To sow it up nicely in a bow and make sure that those that are flouting the law today are fully aware that they will get fined and it's being taken seriously as a national level

Graham

titan18 wrote: »

All it does it drive landlords from the market which pushes rents up as there's less competition.

These proposals are not aimed at and will not effect landlords.

awec

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes it is, investments are supposed to give you a return on your investment without losing / devaluing the initial investment. There is no understanding of how property investing works in that post.

His point is you realise your profit long term, property investment is not about making cash month-to-month.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I think your own prejudice is coming out here. I live in an area with a fair few social tenants never any bother. Now would I think there are people out there that don;t want social tenants next door to them, maybe I do, personally I have no such issues.

Prejudice no sorry mate I grew up in a council house.

Your second part of your paragraph reinforces what I know you were angling at in your first post.

Samuel T. Cogley

awec wrote: »

On a side note, I think the biggest loser in all of this is going to be businesses like Airsorted, which basically exist to make it easier to run your house as a hotel. This ruling makes them irrelevant.

Funnily enough, bullet point 1 on their homepage:

"Hosts can earn 60 - 100% more than renting their home residentially. We optimise the pricing to ensure maximum earnings. "

We'll wait for the legislation to come in, Airsorted will morph into Corporatelettingsorted doing lets for exactly the number of days a tenancy has to be in place for.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We'll wait for the legislation to come in, Airsorted will morph into Corporatelettingsorted doing lets for exactly the number of days a tenancy has to be in place for.

I assume you'll be investing in airsorted then since you can see the future.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

We'll wait for the legislation to come in, Airsorted will morph into Corporatelettingsorted doing lets for exactly the number of days a tenancy has to be in place for.

That's not been the result in other markets where similar legislation has been introduced.

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

His point is you realise your profit long term, property investment is not about making cash month-to-month.

that profit would only be tied to inflation on the sale price. Making a monthly profit from renting is the done thing, especially since we don't allow landlords to operate as a proper business here and write off the full mortgage payment against profits.

arctictree

So what's the big problem? Just get planning permission for your property as a short term tourist let.

gozunda

Mr.H wrote: »

Renting your house out is not supposed to gain profit. It is a long term investment allowing you to sell the house when you retire. Of course greedy landlords forget to think about the amount they sell for in the later years.
Greed

So why does the government demand tax on rent paid to the landlord? How is a landlord supposed to maintain a property. To pay insurance, tax etc etc etc.

And what exactly happens if and when the property market crashes and the owner gets less than when they bought it?

If a landlord only job is renting - How are they supposed to earn an income exactly? I could go on but I've never read such rubbish in my life.

awec

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that profit would only be tied to inflation on the sale price. Making a monthly profit from renting is the done thing, especially since we don't allow landlords to operate as a proper business here and write off the full mortgage payment against profits.

What? No.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

Prejudice no sorry mate I grew up in a council house.

Your second part of your paragraph reinforces what I know you were angling at in your first post.

Me too, well it was built by the council and sold to the MoD but I digress. Do I think people will not want social tenants living next door to them, yes. As I say I'm not one of them and there is no reason to be of that opinion. I genuinely think we need to mix social housing in and I've said so repeatedly on this forum. That includes neww developments in des. res. areas.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

That's not been the result in other markets where similar legislation has been introduced.

That's not been the result in markets where the government have a track record of enforcing bugger all. We can't even get people to stop at red lights, let alone find a canny way around this legislation.

listermint

gozunda wrote: »

So why does the government demand tax on rent paid to the landlord? How is a landlord supposed to maintain a property. To pay insurance, tax etc etc etc.

And what exactly happens if and when the property market crashes and the owner gets less than when they bought it?

If a landlord only job is renting - How are they supposed to earn an income exactly? I could go on but I've never read such rubbish in my life.

No one is owed a living. It would be up to that individual to go get a job themselves. Or invest in something else. After all aren't landlords just investors.... maximizing potential on their asset

Eric Cartman

arctictree wrote: »

So what's the big problem? Just get planning permission for your property as a short term tourist let.

if that was easy it wouldn't be a problem, but you can bet the government will reform that to slow it down or ban it in RPZ's too.

Samuel T. Cogley

Changing tack here and going for the hatrick, how long exactly did this take to come in. I'm not talking about the foreplay, the actual, we're doing this lads to it coming in, maybe a few weeks. What would also do the renatal secotr a world of good is being able to get rid of deadbeat tenants and rent to someone that actually will pay the rent and look after the place.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Changing tack here and going for the hatrick, how long exactly did this take to come in. I'm not talking about the foreplay, the actual, we're doing this lads to it coming in, maybe a few weeks. What would also do the renatal secotr a world of good is being able to get rid of deadbeat tenants and rent to someone that actually will pay the rent and look after the place.

No reason both can't happen.

At least these proposals are one step in the right direction.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Changing tack here and going for the hatrick, how long exactly did this take to come in. I'm not talking about the foreplay, the actual, we're doing this lads to it coming in, maybe a few weeks. What would also do the renatal secotr a world of good is being able to get rid of deadbeat tenants and rent to someone that actually will pay the rent and look after the place.

100% I agree whole heartedly

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

No one is owed a living. It would be up to that individual to go get a job themselves. Or invest in something else. After all aren't landlords just investors.... maximizing potential on their asset

If the investment vehicle doesn;t do what the investor wants then they won't invest. We've seen that over and over again. What we're eventually going to see is the exit of the small time LL from the market and REITs take over. Now we'll see some property trickle into the owner occupier market sure, but the rental sector will be a room in someone's gaffe with no rights or €2500 a month for a one bed becuase it has a gym and a lad on tha gate.

awec

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Changing tack here and going for the hatrick, how long exactly did this take to come in. I'm not talking about the foreplay, the actual, we're doing this lads to it coming in, maybe a few weeks. What would also do the renatal secotr a world of good is being able to get rid of deadbeat tenants and rent to someone that actually will pay the rent and look after the place.

Yea they are not mutually exclusive things. We need to fix:

1. Building more property
2. Sorting out vacant properties
3. Getting rid of crap tenants.

Unfortunately, #3 can't happen until 1 and 2 are sorted. It's a zero-sum game.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If the investment vehicle doesn;t do what the investor wants then they won't invest. We've seen that over and over again. What we're eventually going to see is the exit of the small time LL from the market and REITs take over. Now we'll see some property trickle into the owner occupier market sure, but the rental sector will be a room in someone's gaffe with no rights or €2500 a month for a one bed becuase it has a gym and a lad on tha gate.

Where are you getting this guff from ?

Because let's face it that's nonsense

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if that was easy it wouldn't be a problem, but you can bet the government will reform that to slow it down or ban it in RPZ's too.

There would be no need to slow it down. Short term holiday lettings are rarely permitted in largely residential areas/developments.

Something most people operating in the AirBnB market would be only too aware of.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

Where are you getting this guff from ?

Because let's face it that's nonsense

Really? We've not got a lack of rental supply at the moment?


We're not seeing the rise of large REITs with similar rents to what I've just outlined?


We're not seeing LL's exiting the market?


Honest questions but I don't you can answer the in the negative with a stright face.

Samuel T. Cogley

awec wrote: »

Yea they are not mutually exclusive things. We need to fix:

1. Building more property
2. Sorting out vacant properties
3. Getting rid of crap tenants.

Unfortunately, #3 can't happen until 1 and 2 are sorted. It's a zero-sum game.

#3 can be sorted with legislation introduced and them forced to be homeless, while decent tenants who are willing to pay, be it with HAP, or throught the council are housed.


We're not great on personal responsibility in this country.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

#3 can be sorted with legislation introduced and them forced to be homeless, while decent tenants who are willing to pay, be it with HAP, or throught the council are housed.


We're not great on personal responsibility in this country.

Are you deliberately trying to take the thread off-topic?

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Really? We've not got a lack of rental supply at the moment?


We're not seeing the rise of large REITs with similar rents to what I've just outlined?


We're not seeing LL's exiting the market?


Honest questions but I don't you can answer the in the negative with a stright face.

You said people would be sharing rooms at 2500 pm with no rights.


Guff. You know it.i know it which is why you didn't mention it again in your response

Eric Cartman

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

#3 can be sorted with legislation introduced and them forced to be homeless, while decent tenants who are willing to pay, be it with HAP, or throught the council are housed.


We're not great on personal responsibility in this country.

sadly the bad tenants are often the ones on HAP with kids, no work and a substance abuse problem, the exact kind that get really litigious or spur up socialist groups activism when they're on the streets. You'd sadly never end up in a position where the government would rightly be able to wash their hands of them.

Graham wrote: »

There would be no need to slow it down. Short term holiday lettings are rarely permitted in largely residential areas/developments.

Something most people operating in the AirBnB market would be only too aware of.

Well then we need to reform that to allow it in a lot more cases, the demand is clearly there for it and overall its a benefit to the city.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

There would be no need to slow it down. Short term holiday lettings are rarely permitted in largely residential areas/developments.

Something most people operating in the AirBnB market would be only too aware of.

Just on this. We've a very well run OMC I'm proud to be a director of. We have at least ten AirBnB units in a development of about 140 apartments and little to no bother with them. An asshat LL who is going to let to people having parties all the time is going to be that regardless and you're not going to be any happier with your new neighbours just becuase they're not AirBnBing.

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

sadly the bad tenants are often the ones on HAP with kids, no work and a substance abuse problem, the exact kind that get really litigious or spur up socialist groups activism when they're on the streets. You'd sadly never end up in a position where the government would rightly be able to wash their hands of them.


Well then we need to reform that to allow it in a lot more cases, the demand is clearly there for it and overall its a benefit to the city.

Lovely.


Absolutely lovely.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

You said people would be sharing rooms at 2500 pm with no rights.


Guff. You know it.i know it which is why you didn't mention it again in your response

You really need to read my post again if you're interested in what it actually said. I know my typing and spelling are shyte but they're not that bad.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Just on this. We've a very well run OMC I'm proud to be a director of. We have at least ten AirBnB units in a development of about 140 apartments and little to no bother with them. An asshat LL who is going to let to people having parties all the time is going to be that regardless and you're not going to be any happier with your new neighbours just becuase they're not AirBnBing.

There is no way in hell neighbours in that development are happy with the air bnbs.

No way in hell. But as would obviously be the case you don't care your an owner not an occupier there which is why you can do what you like on the management company

Samuel T. Cogley

Eric Cartman wrote: »

sadly the bad tenants are often the ones on HAP with kids, no work and a substance abuse problem, the exact kind that get really litigious or spur up socialist groups activism when they're on the streets. You'd sadly never end up in a position where the government would rightly be able to wash their hands of them.


Well then we need to reform that to allow it in a lot more cases, the demand is clearly there for it and overall its a benefit to the city.

Those people whould be no where near the private rental sector, they should be in treatment and housed (and looked after propely) by the state. HAP should be for people at least responsible enough to use a condom.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

There is no way in hell neighbours in that development are happy with the air bnbs.

No way in hell. But as would obviously be the case you don't care your an owner not an occupier there which is why you can do what you like on the management company

Did you ask them, becuase I did.

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Did you ask them, becuase I did.

I'm sure . Il take your word for it

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Did you ask them, becuase I did.

Can OMCs opt out of planning laws?

gozunda

listermint wrote: »

No one is owed a living. It would be up to that individual to go get a job themselves. Or invest in something else. After all aren't landlords just investors.... maximizing potential on their asset

And to that point no one is denied a living either.
So where someones principal or significant job and income is as a landlord - what do suggest ? Tell them to work in McDonald's or that his reward for renting out his property will be in Heaven? Who would invest in letting out property if your version of reality existed?

Arn't all those that run businesses just investors? Are they not also attempting to maximise potential on their asset(s)

I think you a mixing up someone who owns a house and those whose job is to refurbish and rent out houses privately.

Or perhaps you are thinking of social housing or something because again nothing there make a any sense whatsover ...

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Are you deliberately trying to take the thread off-topic?

Please clarify (as it was not in bold). In answer no, I'm simply pointing out that we can get emergency legislation through in weeks, but do nothing to stop LL's going to things like AirBnB in the first place.


Was 10K in three months nice, yes it was. Would I rent at C. 4,500K over three months if I could be sure that my losses wouldn;y amount to tens of thousands if I got stung, yes I would. All I need the place to do is break even, I have an asset at the end of it.

c montgomery

FFS

What's next, compelling all taxi drivers to work Saturday night cause that's when it busy?

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Can OMCs opt out of planning laws?

No and me and other AirBnBers were well aware of the breach of planning laws, oddly not our head leases though.



You've dodged the point though that a bad LL is probably going to have bad tenants regardless of the type of let. At least with AirBnB you might get the odd weekend of partying rather than a long term bad tenant who will make life miserbale for months, if not years.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You've dodged the point though that a bad LL is probably going to have bad tenants regardless of the type of let. At least with AirBnB you might get the odd weekend of partying rather than a long term bad tenant who will make life miserbale for months, if not years.

There are bad tenants so AirBnB should be a free-for-all is a pretty weak argument.

fergus1001

to the 99% of air b and b landlords

did you apply to the council for a change to your planning permission before putting the house up for short term letting ?

No ?

quit while your ahead ......

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

There are bad tenants so AirBnB should be a free-for-all is a pretty weak argument.

No AirBnB should have properly rated guests, no AirBnBer wants the neigbours upset or more selfishly the place trashed. I've bugger all idea who I'm renting too in the current scheme of things. I know that the person I'm 'hosting' has had atleast a small number of posative reviews.

Samuel T. Cogley

I can see work is not going to be boring tomorrow, night night all.

Lantus

Airbnb is a great example of innovation in an otherwise stagnant status quo sector.

It has nothing to do with the disfunction of the housing market and instead was trying to find better ways to move forwards and provide solutions.

Banning Airbnb is a shocking curtailment of personal freedom and liberty. It won't make any difference to housing availability because the core underlying conditions remain unchanged.

It's communist economics under the banner of helping people. Governments are banning uber, my taxi and Airbnb in a few places. They don't like cost effective solutions that provide a really good service eroding state backed industries that need protection to survive.

Graham

Lantus wrote: »

Banning Airbnb is a shocking curtailment of personal freedom and liberty.

There is no proposal to ban AirBnB.

fxotoole

Pkiernan wrote: »

Unreal, but the communists appear to have gotten their way.
No more Air BnB unless you rent a room in your own dwelling.

Can't understand how FG thinks this will help them come election time.

http://www.thejournal.ie/airbnb-regulations-ireland-3-4259732-Sep2018/

Now there’s a first. Never thought I’d hear “FG” and “communists” in the same sentence.

awec

Lantus wrote: »

Airbnb is a great example of innovation in an otherwise stagnant status quo sector.

It has nothing to do with the disfunction of the housing market and instead was trying to find better ways to move forwards and provide solutions.

Banning Airbnb is a shocking curtailment of personal freedom and liberty. It won't make any difference to housing availability because the core underlying conditions remain unchanged.

It's communist economics under the banner of helping people. Governments are banning uber, my taxi and Airbnb in a few places. They don't like cost effective solutions that provide a really good service eroding state backed industries that need protection to survive.

This post is wrong in so many ways it is hard to know where to start.

awec

c montgomery wrote: »

FFS

What's next, compelling all taxi drivers to work Saturday night cause that's when it busy?

They'll probably come up with some crazy schemes like forcing property in residential zones to be residential, forcing business property to remain business property and what not.

Your next door neighbour might want to turn his house into a chipper and they'd probably ban that too. Shocking! Won't someone think of all the hungry people!

Wee Jimmy in the house behind wants to turn his gaff into a pub. That'd be banned. Damn communists, coming here and imposing restrictive planning permission on us all!

Some rich american has bought all the houses on the opposite side of the street, he wants to flatten them all and build a wind farm. Oh no, wait, there's that fecking planning permission again. Outrageous. Think of the climate!

gozunda

Lantus wrote: »

Airbnb is a great example of innovation in an otherwise stagnant status quo sector....

One of the possibly best description of Airbnb type accommodation that I found is

Airbnb use of accommodation for short term letting is an example of sharing economy services where through web based applications individuals can connect to each other in terms of providing and requesting services, in this case accommodation.

The growth of sharing economy services is explained not only by the opportunities that the internet offers, but also by the increase in urbanisation. Urban living patterns result in proximity of people to each other but also in premium values of land and goods.

The increased cost of property and transport infrastructure for example, is a factor leading to lifestyles with less ownership and more access to goods based on short term use. Car sharing services, Uber transport services and Airbnb accommodation services are all examples of this phenomenon.

http://www.rwnowlan.ie/airbnb/

It is certainly strange that it is these sharing economy services that the current government is attempting to strangulate the most whilst the issues of public housing etc remain completely unaddressed by same ...