Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

900,000 (90%) , 4x income with an exemption , 225,000 a year combined income for a household and a 100k deposit needed.

are there 900 odd couples with that kind of income looking to buy in Dublin who have decided for whatever reason to slum it in an affordable rental until now ?

I think not.

That would suggest property prices will drop in those areas when the extranormal returns from AirBnB dry up.

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

Ah yes, the old tourism concern. This is my favourite one.

Im sorry I have the audacity to be concerned about one of our nations largest sources of income and all of the people it employes.

Eric Cartman

Graham wrote: »

That would suggest property prices will drop in those areas when the extranormal returns from AirBnB dry up.

a million quid house in D2 dropped to 900k , congratulations the housing crisis is over, well done Fine Geal.

davindub

titan18 wrote: »

awec wrote: »

Cool, so sell it. Still better than AirBnB.

Are there many potential buyers for high end properties in Dublin? Considering house prices are stagnating or decreasing at that end, it's likely there's not.

Are they high end? Most seem to be apartments in around the city.

Anyway its happening so we will see tbe effect, I just hope they are effective penalties, you give out about RTB, imagine being a neighbour of an airbnb property and trying to get it stopped!

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a million quid house in D2 dropped to 900k , congratulations the housing crisis is over, well done Fine Geal.

Are there many of those on AirBnB?

Most I've seen are apartments, particularly around D1/D2/D7.

Prime rental/young professional territory.

pauldavis123

All properties coming to market from this will be priced at the absolute top in an attempt to regain some of the money that AirBnB brought in.

All are new lets so exempt from rental caps.

Every time new regs come in supply tightens as landlords leave.

Every time rents climb.

The same will happen here.

Landlords should be begging for more regulation at this stage!

Eric Cartman

Graham wrote: »

Are there many of those on AirBnB?

Most I've seen are apartments, particularly around D1/D2/D7.

Prime rental/young professional territory.

almost 30 I'm associated with for one client, a handfull more for another. A lot of the cheaper apartments listed are still D2/4 and fetch >2500 a month longterm rent.

If the basis of this was to help executives and high earners rent in the city id say job done, but this is being railroaded in under the guise of helping the homeless / struggling working class / younger people to rent , they were never in line for those properties anyway so the idea this whole proposal is based on is just a complete failure to deliver from the get go.

Ginger83

Graham wrote: »

What gives you the impression any legislation is aimed at solely helping renters?

Despite protests to the contrary, it is likely a large proportion of currently AirBnB'd properties in prime locations will return to the rental market one way or another.

Vast numbers of properties will sit empty for take back the city to squat in.

awec

Graham wrote: »

Are there many of those on AirBnB?

Most I've seen are apartments, particularly around D1/D2/D7.

Prime rental/young professional territory.

Yep, tonnes of apartments that should be used for housing. The idea it’s all big houses in Foxrock is nonsense.

pearcider

Easy to see the people in this thread who’ve just seen their cash cow slaughtered I for one am delighted. It’s a joke that a government would be expected to prioritize wealthy tourists over its own taxpayers and citizens. Now bring on the vacant home tax.

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

Yep, tonnes of apartments that should be used for housing. The idea it’s all big houses in Foxrock is nonsense.

I never said it was big houses in foxrock, I said that the only people liable to long term rent a 3 bed penthouse in D4 or a 2 bed 2800 a month apartment in the docklands are currently living in a big house in foxrock so the Airbnb being removed on the apartment neither benefits the low end of the market primarily or with the vacated suburban property left by the person moving in to the city.

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

almost 30 I'm associated with for one client, a handfull more for another..

The vast majority of AirBnB properties are nowhere near the million euro property price tags.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is being railroaded in under the guise of helping the homeless / struggling working class / younger people to rent

This is being done under the guise of returning residential property back to the residential property market.

Anybody connected to the short-term letting industry in Ireland has to have seen this coming.

Fann Linn

Ginger83 wrote: »

Vast numbers of properties will sit empty for take back the city to squat in.

They could be sold or rented out. There is a market for them.

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I never said it was big houses in foxrock, I said that the only people liable to long term rent a 3 bed penthouse in D4 or a 2 bed 2800 a month apartment in the docklands are currently living in a big house in foxrock so the Airbnb being removed on the apartment neither benefits the low end of the market primarily or with the vacated suburban property left by the person moving in to the city.

There's more than enough young professionals working in the tech/finance industry that would have no problem splitting €2800 for a high spec centrally located apartment.

Ginger83

Fann Linn wrote: »

They could be sold or rented out. There is a market for them.

The reason a ll moved to Air bnb is due to the lack of protection. Some will sell, others will leave empty and watch value increase.

Vacant tax is inevitable.

Graham

Ginger83 wrote: »

Vast numbers of properties will sit empty for take back the city to squat in.

Do you really believe the majority of property investors would be happy to see hundreds of thousands tied up making a negative return in a market where capital appreciation is practically zero?

Fann Linn

Ginger83 wrote: »

The reason a ll moved to Air bnb is due to the lack of protection. Some will sell, others will leave empty and watch value increase.

Vacant tax is inevitable.

All part and parcel of the Vancouver model which this is based on.

The_Honeybadger

This was coming. There is simply no credible defence for thousands of residential units being tied up as unlicensed short term lets when we have a housing crisis, or even when we don’t. This won’t solve the crisis on its own but it’s one step in the right direction.

Those saying that the owners of these properties will simply leave them empty in some sort of mass protest are very naieve. They will be either let out long term or sold in the vast majority of cases. Very few owners could afford to leave them empty in the long term. I don’t believe they are all high end suburban homes either. A quick search on Airbnb brings up a plethora of apartments and other residential units.

3DataModem

Fann Linn wrote: »

All part and parcel of the Vancouver model which this is based on.

Toronto I think

Scienceless

Surely this approach of regulating Airbnb, if the aim is to bring these properties back to the domestic rental market, also requires regulation to deal with why so many ll’s turned to Airbnb in the first place, e.g.

Over holding tenants, non payment of rent, anti social behaviour, property damage, all occurring with little or no fear of accountability.

I have a feeling this won’t happen though, which makes this a pointless exercise IMO, as the number of properties returning to the market won’t be of any significance without protections, i.e. fairness, being put in place.

Too many well publicised cases of ll’s being stung for thousands of euros out there, and the gov expect these Airbnb ll’s to join a one sided rental market? Crazy!

Sharktopus

Ginger83 wrote: »

The reason a ll moved to Air bnb is due to the lack of protection. Some will sell, others will leave empty and watch value increase.

Vacant tax is inevitable.

The reason people moved to Airbnb is because they can make multiples of what can be earned on the residential market.

I think lack of protection is a secondary concern.

Scienceless

Sharktopus wrote: »

The reason people moved to Airbnb is because they can make multiples of what can be earned on the residential market.

I think lack of protection is a secondary concern.

It could soon become their primary concern if they can’t Airbnb anymore. Which is why it won’t help the residential market.

Graham

Scienceless wrote: »

I have a feeling this won’t happen though, which makes this a pointless exercise IMO, as the number of properties returning to the market won’t be of any significance without protections, i.e. fairness, being put in place.

While I agree landlords need additional protections, properties removed from the AirBnB market aren't going to just vanish.

The majority will return to the residential market for sale or rent.

Eric Cartman

Sharktopus wrote: »

The reason people moved to Airbnb is because they can make multiples of what can be earned on the residential market.

I think lack of protection is a secondary concern.

They moved to Airbnb because government agencies were telling tenants to overhold, the PRTB always side with tenants and it takes months to kick somebody not paying out. Airbnb brings neighbour complaints, extra wear and tear, check ins at all hours and lots more headaches most landlords would sacrifice the extra few hundred a month to live without.

Scienceless

Graham wrote: »

While I agree landlords need additional protections, properties removed from the AirBnB market aren't going to just vanish.

The majority will return to the residential market for sale or rent.

The majority for sale I would think, and bought by owner occupiers, bottom line the rental market won’t benefit here.

Graham

Scienceless wrote: »

The majority for sale I would think, and bought by owner occupiers, bottom line the rental market won’t benefit here.

Property returns to the residential market one way or another, it's probably reasonable to suggest that's the goal here.

Fann Linn

Scienceless wrote: »

The majority for sale I would think, and bought by owner occupiers, bottom line the rental market won’t benefit here.

More homes for owner/occupiers will free up other housing units further down the line. It can only help.

Scienceless

Graham wrote: »

Property returns to the residential market one way or another, it's probably reasonable to suggest that's the goal here.

True, I’ve no involvement with Airbnb so it makes no odds to me either way. I’d be more interested in what else the minister has to say this week alongside the regulation of Airbnb.

Nermal

No AirBNB. No Uber. A government happy for the third economic revolution to pass us by.

Eric Cartman

Nermal wrote: »

No AirBNB. No Uber. A government happy for the third economic revolution to pass us by.

how dare anybody use their skills / property how they want, no it has to be the old , cumbersome expensive cartel run by big players only. We're so backward.