Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

Scienceless

listermint wrote: »

And any clown that says their property will remain empty is a liar

Nonsense. Plenty with second properties Airbnb-ing them when they’re not using them themselves or family members using them. Airbnb allows them put the property to work when empty, and when it suits them.

awec

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Pretty much most of Romania, in Japan you can build a residence anywhere and most zones allow you to do some commercial use after that but once you stick within the simple table of rules that it.

Even the most places that do have planning permission its mostly to do with just physical building height, overlooking and location. Many countries do not care what you use it for and the process isn't half as convoluted as it is here.

So to clarify, you think places like the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Ireland are all communist states?

gozunda

awec wrote: »

This really is complete and utter rubbish. Can you name me a state where the concept of planning permission does not exist?

I was not referring to 'planning permission' rather a reply to the poster being delighted that people were having their 'cash cows slaughtered' (sic)...

lawred2

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/

What's the problem here?

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

So to clarify, you think places like the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Ireland are all communist states?

that is absolutely not what I said or implied, the very fact you'd try and stretch to say thats what I'm saying leaves me to believe that nobody benefits my continued engagement with yourself on this thread. Im not sure if you put 2 and 2 together and got 40 by accident or if you are being intentionally deceitful.

awec

gozunda wrote: »

I was not referring to 'planning permission' rather a reply to the poster being delighted that people were having their 'cash cows slaughtered' (sic)...

These cash cows are directly contributing to others paying through their arse for rent.


They are part of the problem. I don't think it's that unreasonable to be delighted to see people who flout planning laws being forced back into legitimate business.

awec

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that is absolutely not what I said or implied, the very fact you'd try and stretch to say thats what I'm saying leaves me to believe that nobody benefits my continued engagement with yourself on this thread. Im not sure if you put 2 and 2 together and got 40 by accident or if you are being intentionally deceitful.

So why are we still waffling about communism? It is a complete red herring, a distraction. You cannot do whatever you want with your property. You never have been able to. You never will be able to. This is the same the world over.

listermint

titan18 wrote: »

I'm 29, still live at home, and can't afford a house and I'm against it. It's easy to be against something when it's short-sighted, populist and does nothing to solve the actual issues.

Time and time again has it been shown that more regulation has caused more issues to the housing market here. All it does it drive landlords from the market which pushes rents up as there's less competition.

Rents are being pushed up solely due to the commoditisation of property since the mid 90s. Property shows on the likes of the BBC and ITV and many other platforms telling every Joe soap they can make huge money turning houses into rentals flipping or owning many.

So it's laughable to say that properly regulationing piss taking will make it more trouble.

I'm not sure you realise or not but the Lego landlords trying to grab air BnB let's contribute to pushing prices out of reach of the likes of yourself especially for apartments.

So this step is fantastic and it should be followed up with a bunch of other steps . Not all landlord focused. We need supply next. And then move on to the next and the next.

The problem is multifaceted and Airbnb was only one thread

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

So why are we still waffling about communism?

you are, I haven't mentioned it, I think you're confusing me with another poster.

Mr.H

Twenty Grand wrote:

Yep, and you'll pay 50% of that in tax. So you'll be out of pocket by €150 a month in mortgage for a house you can't live in and unknown euro a month if your tenants decide not to bother paying rent, or to damage the house.

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

gozunda

awec wrote: »

You can get planning permission to allow short term lettings. These people have nothing to worry about.

The worry (and moaning) will come from those who know what they are doing is wrong, and who know they have no chance of ever claiming legitimate use as a short term let.

A strong bang of moralizing on 'right' and 'wrong' there tbh. Wrong according to whom?

awec wrote: »

These cash cows are directly contributing to others paying through their arse for rent.

They are part of the problem. I don't think it's that unreasonable to be delighted to see people who flout planning laws being forced back into legitimate business.

So do the 'cash cows' who are taxi drivers etc push up the price of cars?

Personally I see such comments as nigh on barking when those currently renting properties are legally doing so. The fact that the government is having to bring in legislation to change the status quo proves that to be the case...

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

Good !

Is this you trying to to get one back on the government? Your neighbours ?

I don't really get it, either way it makes you look incredibly stupid with and incredibly stupid point.

The post is genuine. I'm happy to hand it over to DCC and let them look after it. I'll take 85% of market rent which is still huge money. Why would it be getting back at anyone? I'm all for helping someone whose down on their luck with a gauranteed rent, I hope many AirBnBers do the same.

listermint

Scienceless wrote: »

Nonsense. Plenty with second properties Airbnb-ing them when they’re not using them themselves or family members using them. Airbnb allows them put the property to work when empty, and when it suits them.

That's a narrative.

Airbnb is a means to skirt laws and make the maximum possible money .

Citizens of the country don't owe landlords a living. Regulations are a means to direct policy. I'm glad the hay day is over.

awec

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. "

listermint

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The post is genuine. I'm happy to hand it over to DCC and let them look after it. I'll take 85% of market rent which is still huge money. Why would it be getting back at anyone?

You phrased it as if putting in social tenants was a threat.

And tbh I still believe that's what you meant because that's how it was worded

Eric Cartman

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

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.

titan18

awec wrote: »

Landlords letting their properties out on AirBnB are not ON the market. These properties are not part of Ireland's property market at the moment.

That is exactly the problem. These properties directly contribute to rising rents.

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.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

You phrased it as if putting in social tenants was a threat.

And tbh I still believe that's what you meant because that's how it was worded

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.

listermint

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.

Well if that's what happens that's what happens. There are other investments out there no one is owed a living.

titan18

awec wrote: »

These cash cows are directly contributing to others paying through their arse for rent.


They are part of the problem. I don't think it's that unreasonable to be delighted to see people who flout planning laws being forced back into legitimate business.

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?

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.