Air BnB [and other platforms] to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas

mille100piedi

pwurple wrote: »

The people I know who let on AirBnB as full units are teachers or professionals who leave the country for a few months. I did that a few years ago, worked in the US for a project for 9 months, and came back. It would have worked out great at the time if I could have the house occupied, and some income from it. But I couldn't take the risk with a rental, that the tenant would leave afterwards. They are required to by law, if I want my house back, but there are plenty of horror stories where it can take a year or more to drag them through the courts to get them out. 
Air BnB would have been perfect for that, and in my experience, that's what a lot of people were using it for. Not exactly tourists, but business travel.

How can you trust short term tourists coming to your primary residence for a few days meanwhile you are abroad ?I also go abroad for months regularly but in that case I look for a person long term and I do a lot of interview to choose the right person. At the end of the day he is a stranger staying in my own house full of my stuff. I need to trust the person. The tenant will know that I will come back eventually and of course he has to leave otherwise he will need to sleep in bed with me. During the spring and summer I do Airbnb but I rent just a room in that case

Bob24

mille100piedi wrote: »

The tenant will know that I will come back eventually and of course he has to leave otherwise he will need to sleep in bed with me.

Better make sure you don’t get a tenant who’s physically attracted to you ... or with the alternative you’re offering they’ll never leave! ;-)

daithi7

Bluefoam wrote: »

I think I missed your point... are you suggesting that investors are better for residential housing than owner occupiers?

I think the idea being communicated is that landlords provide rental accommodation so yes, when rents are so high and there is a rental property shortage, having properties being sold to non landlords is not good for renters really. I e. Each property sold by landlords is one less property available to rent.

TheChizler

daithi7 wrote: »

I think the idea being communicated is that landlords provide rental accommodation so yes, when rents are so high and there is a rental property shortage, having properties being sold to non landlords is not good for renters really. I e. Each property sold by landlords is one less property available to rent.

But one property sold by an AirBnB-landlord wasn't in the rental market anyway.

So... Each AirBnB property sold is one more property available to be rent, or takes someone else off the rental market and their old place is one more place available to rent, or a new entrant to the housing market takes it and there's a net effect of zero.

So it actually ranges from no change to an entire extra property available to rent, overall a non-negative change to supply.

daithi7

TheChizler wrote: »

But one property sold by an AirBnB-landlord wasn't in the rental market anyway.

So... Each AirBnB property sold is one more property available to be rent, or takes someone else off the rental market and their old place is one more place available to rent, or a new entrant to the housing market takes it and there's a net effect of zero.

So it actually ranges from no change to an entire extra property available to rent, overall a non-negative change to supply.

Yes, I see what you're saying but sometimes things are not so simple. For instance a Ll may not know what they want to do with a property long term, and may wish to avoid part 4 commitments for a while so might just want to use airbnb for a transition period

This legislation enforcement explicitly prevents that so it gives yet another reason for a provider of the housing needs of others to sell imho.

Bluefoam

daithi7 wrote: »

Yes, I see what you're saying but sometimes things are not so simple. For instance a Ll may not know what they want to do with a property long term, and may wish to avoid part 4 commitments for a while so might just want to use airbnb for a transition period

This legislation enforcement explicitly prevents that so it gives yet another reason for a provider of the housing needs of others to sell imho.

huh? sounds like it may effect a couple of landlords in the way you descibe. I don't see that being a wider issue...

TheChizler

daithi7 wrote: »

Yes, I see what you're saying but sometimes things are not so simple. For instance a Ll may not know what they want to do with a property long term, and may wish to avoid part 4 commitments for a while so might just want to use airbnb for a transition period

This legislation enforcement explicitly prevents that so it gives yet another reason for a provider of the housing needs of others to sell imho.

Fair point and while it may be true for some is it widespread enough to have an effect?

daithi7

TheChizler wrote: »

Fair point and while it may be true for some is it widespread enough to have an effect?

Maybe yes or maybe no, but it definitely puts in yet another restriction on a property's rental use and even the idea of that (i.e. more red tape more restrictions) could be enough to affect a section of Ll imho.

The other tangential negative effect of this is to reduce the attractiveness of the city to casual tourists and hence reduce tax receipts, balance of payments etc etc, etc

E.g. One of the main reasons Ireland lost out on the Rugby World Cup bid was a perceived pack of tourist beds in the main cities & towns to enable successful hosting of the event.

So a lose lose in many ways imho.

Graham

It's not the purpose of the residential property market to make the city attractive to tourists.

If somebody is currently accommodating guests via AirBnB, they are arguably not a landlord.

Bluefoam

There's a huge amount of hotel rooms being built in Dublin and the rest of the country... Landlords don't need to worry about the poor tourists...

daithi7

No but the government should, cos tourists are vital to the economy & vibrancy of the place.

So when a government decides to come between property providers and the (tourist) market it should proceed with caution imho.

The law of unintended consequences really comes into play here!!

Graham

In this instance (and quite unusually) the consequences are quite intended.

Return residential property to the residential property market.

The potential affect on tourism isn't (and shouldn't be) a consideration to be honest. That's not to say other tourism related initiatives shouldn't be considered.

LuckyLloyd

More hotel capacity is coming on stream, being built, being planned.

Too much tourism can kill the "vibrancy" of a place. People don't go to hang out in New York because there are other tourists there. The people who live and work there make it the place it is, and tourists come because of that. We had ample tourism before AirBnB was a thing, and we'll have ample tourism after it stops being a thing. It's only been a concept in existence for a decade, and only reached the type of market proliferation we're seeing in Dublin within the last three to five. Other tourist hubs have banned the practice and retained their desirability for tourists. AirBnB or short term lets are completely unimportant to attracting tourism.

The whole 'but what about the tourists' thing is a complete red herring imo.

robp

Bluefoam wrote: »

There's a huge amount of hotel rooms being built in Dublin and the rest of the country... Landlords don't need to worry about the poor tourists...

Politics of fear right here.

robp

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

More hotel capacity is coming on stream, being built, being planned.

Too much tourism can kill the "vibrancy" of a place. People don't go to hang out in New York because there are other tourists there. The people who live and work there make it the place it is, and tourists come because of that. We had ample tourism before AirBnB was a thing, and we'll have ample tourism after it stops being a thing. It's only been a concept in existence for a decade, and only reached the type of market proliferation we're seeing in Dublin within the last three to five. Other tourist hubs have banned the practice and retained their desirability for tourists. AirBnB or short term lets are completely unimportant to attracting tourism.

The whole 'but what about the tourists' thing is a complete red herring imo.

It is magical thinking to suppose that after the litany of failures that this umpteen gov intervention is going to improve the rental market. Interventions don't work.

aloooof

robp wrote: »

It is magical thinking to suppose that after the litany of failures that this umpteen gov intervention is going to improve the rental market. Interventions don't work.

Instead of claiming the rather general "interventions don't work", can be more specific and explain why you think returning residential property to the residential property market won't work?

gctest50

aloooof wrote: »

Instead of claiming the rather general "interventions don't work", can be more specific and explain why you think returning residential property to the residential property market won't work?

Not all of the landlords switched to airbnb

AirbNb is often bringing in tourist money to the city

It would be better to clear out the houses/apartment let by the HSE/social/ for the hopeless cases and move them out a bit- they can be anywhere once they are near a post office

This would free up a lot of accomodation for people working in the city

It was a golden chance to improve tourism, get in money and provide accomodation for those who need to be near work

As usual in Ireland, if it doesn't make sense - there is a scam in there somewhere - probably the millions that will be spent on advertising on tourism

Corrupt, filthy basketcase of a country

RayCun

So you're not saying it won't work, just that you'd rather something different was done instead.

aloooof

gctest50 wrote: »

Corrupt, filthy basketcase of a country

Aside from everything else in your post, where's your evidence that corruption is at play here?

gctest50

aloooof wrote: »

Aside from everything else in your post, where's your evidence that corruption is at play here?

That was in general

circular flexing

gctest50 wrote: »

It was a golden chance to improve tourism, get in money and provide accomodation for those who need to be near work

You are aware that a lot of major cities in North America have already introduced or are in the process of introducing similar restrictions for Airbnb?


Housing stock built should be used for the purpose it was built for i.e. for people and families to live in long term, any change to that use should require correct permission. It's that simple.

runawaybishop

aloooof wrote: »

Instead of claiming the rather general "interventions don't work", can be more specific and explain why you think returning residential property to the residential property market won't work?

That's not really what will happen. Land lords that left the long term rental market for Airbnb won't return to the rental market, they will sell instead. Rentals have higher density so overall it will not help and will end up with even higher rents.

Pretty much every intervention so far has looked good as a headline if you are a tenant but has actually resulted in higher rents in the long run. All the interventions are punitive on landlords so they exit the market. This policy won't see a single new house being built.

aloooof

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's not really what will happen. Land lords that left the long term rental market for Airbnb won't return to the rental market, they will sell instead. Rentals have higher density so overall it will not help and will end up with even higher rents.

They will sell to buyers who will then use the property as residential property. It's still a net increase in the amount of property being used for residential purposes.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Pretty much every intervention so far has looked good as a headline if you are a tenant but has actually resulted in higher rents in the long run. All the interventions are punitive on landlords so they exit the market. This policy won't see a single new house being built.

This policy isn't designed to see a single new house built. And building isn't the only solution. I've said it before on this thread:

aloooof wrote: »

The lack of building is an issue. But so is the amount of residential properties being used for short-term lets. They're not mutually exclusive. The government should be tackling both. It's a positive that they've started tackling one.

runawaybishop

aloooof wrote: »

They will sell to buyers who will then use the property as residential property. It's still a net increase in the amount of property being used for residential purposes.



This policy isn't designed to see a single new house built. And building isn't the only solution. I've said it before on this thread:

Yes, more resedential property leading to overall less available property as rentals have higher density. Net result higher rents. The opposite of what this is supposed to do.

This policy is designed to make people think the government are helping the issues, they are not.

TheChizler

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, more resedential property leading to overall less available property as rentals have higher density. Net result higher rents. The opposite of what this is supposed to do.

These units are already off the rental market if they're used primarily for AirBnB.

runawaybishop

TheChizler wrote: »

These units are already off the rental market if they're used primarily for AirBnB.

Yeah, they came off the rental market already due to bad policies and now will leave it entirely. Any that do go back to the rental market will be able to skip the rent cap if they have been on Airbnb for 2 years leading to, yes you guessed it, higher rents.

This assume the properties aren't just left empty for a while of course, if that happens it's even worse.

aloooof

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, more resedential property leading to overall less available property as rentals have higher density. Net result higher rents. The opposite of what this is supposed to do.

This policy is designed to make people think the government are helping the issues, they are not.

But they're currently not being used as residential rentals, which is exactly the point.

Even if sold the property doesn't go from high density residential to low density residential property (which you're arguing above). It goes from non-residential short-term lets to residential.

runawaybishop

aloooof wrote: »

But they're currently not being used as residential rentals, which is exactly the point.

If sold the property doesn't go from high density residential to low density residential property (which you're arguing above). It goes from non-residential short-term lets to residential.

No, the point was to increase rental properties.

These properties were originally higher density long term rentals. Government policy has now forced then into lower density residential (and also probably a decent period where they are empty).

Policy from the government is reducing overall supply at a time when we are already massively undersupplied.

aloooof

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, the point was to increase rental properties.

These properties were originally higher density long term rentals. Government policy has now forced then into lower density residential (and also probably a decent period where they are empty).

Policy from the government is reducing overall supply at a time when we are already massively undersupplied.

Whether they were originally designed as higher density or not, they're still not on the residential market currently.

Having them returned to the market, even as lower density residential property still adds to supply of residential property.

And that's if we accept your premises, which are at best, arguable.

robp

circular flexing wrote: »

You are aware that a lot of major cities in North America have already introduced or are in the process of introducing similar restrictions for Airbnb?


Housing stock built should be used for the purpose it was built for i.e. for people and families to live in long term, any change to that use should require correct permission. It's that simple.

All across the US you also have rent controls but they are still a bad idea.
In most cases the person best able to plan the use of an asset if the owner. I just am not seeing how one could think that some civil servant in the Custom House, Wexford or Mayo would be able to plan how someone's house is best used. Central planning is just faulty.