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

Graham

The_Conductor wrote: »

Yes- there was a small but growing number of landlords using short term lets

That's one of the key points.

It was growing.

Left unchecked, property prices are driven higher, long term residents are driven out and entire areas are changed beyond recognition as they become centred around the tourist market.

AlmightyCushion

The low numbers- don't support the over-all narrative being peddled- yes, the Minister is doing something- however, its a drop in the ocean- and it is by no means the game changer that some people seem to imagine it to be.

The most curious thing of all- is how few units are on airbnb and booking.com in Ireland- one would have thought (from all the media hype) that the numbers were significantly highter than they actually are. Yes- there was a small but growing number of landlords using short term lets- to get around getting nobbled by the 2004 Residential Tenancies Act- however, the number of people doing this- is demonstatably smaller than the shrill commentary would suggest.

Every knows that getting these Airbnb units back onto the residential market isn't going to solve the housing crisis but it will still help as it will increase supply.

CoffeeBean2

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

It's great to see the Irish begrudger attitude is alive and well. That's what the vast majority of this is. Someone else has something you don't have and they are making money from it and that's wrong in your eyes.

Clearly you feel that no matter the cost, one extra house makes it all worth while.

But they are all breaking the law, yeah planning laws which clearly say renting a property for 15 days is OK, but for 14 days it's clearly wrong.

If it’s begrudgery to think it wrong for properties built as private dwellings used as a business venture while there are homeless people/families, then, yes I’m guilty.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

http://insideairbnb.com/dublin

Of the 9530 advertisements on Airbnb for Dublin- 4896 units are let as 'entire properties'- and 1870 or less than 20% of all advertisements on Airbnb for Dublin- feature properties with availability of greater than 99 days in the calendar year.

Also- of the 9530 advertisements on Airbnb for Dublin- 6350 have availability of less than 25 days in the previous year- and 882 had zero availability in the last year (that is- there was an advertisement up on airbnb for the property previously, but the advertiser did not let the property in the last 12 months (at all).

It doesn't specifically state which of the properties are PPRs- however, one can surmise that entirety of the 6350 properties with 25 or fewer days available in the last year- were PPRs- in addition to a fair chunk of the other properties.

In addition- only 27% of the entire properties (apartments and houses) on airbnb (for Dublin) were available for more than 99 days in the previous year.

So- a tad over a quarter of the entire properties would appear to be abusing the Residential Tenancies Act......... Roughly 3 in 4 of all entire houses and apartments on airbnb- come under the Minister's definition as allowable- only 27% of current lettings of entire units on airbnb would be outlawed.........

Its hard to get good data- but the insideairbnb website- is probably as good as it gets..........

So, roughly 2,000 properties would be available for long term private dwellings. That would house ALL homeless families in Dublin. I think that’s great news for the homeless.

Amirani

Deleted User wrote: »

So, roughly 2,000 properties would be available for long term private dwellings. That would house ALL homeless families in Dublin. I think that’s great news for the homeless.

I think you're forgetting that these properties will still actually be privately owned. Are you suggesting the State or Council should buy all these 2000 properties purely to house people who are currently declared homeless?

Have you the slightest idea how much that would cost? Have you any idea how many additional people would suddenly declare themselves homeless if that scheme was announced?

There's merit in the new legislation. Suggesting that it's going to fix the homeless problem is naive in the extreme.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

So, roughly 2,000 properties would be available for long term private dwellings. That would house ALL homeless families in Dublin. I think that’s great news for the homeless.

Just how do you reckon these units will factor in housing the homeless?
These properties *are* being used at the moment. If you repurpose them for sale into the general market- you are creating 1870 units for sale- but you are reducing the number of short term accommodation units by 1870. Most of the homeless families in Dublin- are accommodated by the Dublin Regional Housing Executive- in shortterm accommodation units- which include the likes of these units. So- whether you like it or not- you're removing them both from tourists, workers and homeless families- in favour of selling them to owner occupiers. You create a new bottle neck elsewhere in the chain..........

All this is doing- is a reshuffling of the decks. It doesn't add to the over-all supply- it simply resectors it.

I can already imagine that people will be overjoyed and heralding this as some sort of victory- when an actual victory- would be the construction of 1870 new affordable and social housing units in Dublin City Centre. This is nothing of the sort.

Graham

Resectoring/reshuffling residential property back into the residential sector is one small step in the right direction.

That's not to say there aren't other areas that need fixing/addressing.

Amirani

Amirani wrote: »

I think you're forgetting that these properties will still actually be privately owned. Are you suggesting the State or Council should buy all these 2000 properties purely to house people who are currently declared homeless?

Have you the slightest idea how much that would cost? Have you any idea how many additional people would suddenly declare themselves homeless if that scheme was announced?

There's merit in the new legislation. Suggesting that it's going to fix the homeless problem is naive in the extreme.

Privately owned but not used for the purpose they were built for. There’s nothing stopping the owners letting the properties long term.

Regarding people declaring themselves “homeless”, why do you think that is? Need I remind you of Erica Fleming and Margaret Cash? Both housed after creating a fuss.

I don’t think that homelessness will ever be eradicated totally. Rough sleepers are still at the same number as they were 30 to 40 years ago.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

Resectoring/reshuffling residential property back into the residential sector is one small step in the right direction.

That's not to say there aren't other areas that need fixing/addressing.

As the 1870 units have a current utilisation of approx 33%- it does mean a net increase of roughly 1,200 residential units- however, it also means an incredible crunch in the short term accommodation sector- particularly in the Dublin area.

Resectoring is good- yes- however, one has to be cognisant that we are creating a crunch somewhere else- that we critically need to deal with.

CoffeeBean2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it’s begrudgery to think it wrong for properties built as private dwellings used as a business venture while there are homeless people/families, then, yes I’m guilty.

Have you offered you spare room or sofa to one of these homeless people you talk about? Probably not, but I'm sure you would be happy to offer someone else's.

CoffeeBean2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, roughly 2,000 properties would be available for long term private dwellings. That would house ALL homeless families in Dublin. I think that’s great news for the homeless.

Do you really think that those high quality houses are just going to be handed over to the homeless?

Maybe we should all go protest outside of the Google and Facebook offices, those guys are taking up quite a few properties that could also be used for the homeless!

Dav010

It really isn’t the responsibility of private home owners to solve the homeless problem. I’m struggling to see how the mortgage gets paid on these 2000 properties if they are assigned for social housing outside of the government paying the going private rental rate, the government buys the property at market value or the previously homeless occupants somehow find the money to pay rent. I would think all three options are unlikely to ever occur.

I still don’t see these Airbnb properties returning to the long term rental market. Again, the owners exited this market for both financial reasons and a reluctance to accept the hassle/risk of renting. It may mean more, expensive city sales, or it may mean owners will either take a chance with short lets on other platforms knowing that there may be penalties if caught.

I’d be looking for corporate let’s to MNs.

CoffeeBean2

There are going to be many knock on effects to this change other than the obvious.

While the summer months and at weekends, the majority of the short term lets are probably occupied by tourists that spend money in the local economy. I have noticed that during the week, a lot of small businesses are using short term lets to house their employees that are traveling for work.

Once short term lets are gone, costs will go up and make it less economical for small businesses to compete for those projects. This will drive up costs of business and that won't help the wider economy.

CoffeeBean2

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

There are going to be many knock on effects to this change other than the obvious.

While the summer months and at weekends, the majority of the short term lets are probably occupied by tourists that spend money in the local economy. I have noticed that during the week, a lot of small businesses are using short term lets to house their employees that are traveling for work.

Once short term lets are gone, costs will go up and make it less economical for small businesses to compete for those projects. This will drive up costs of business and that won't help the wider economy.

Short term lets will still be available. I’m sure that some owners will apply for the proper planning permission and carry on.

CoffeeBean2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Short term lets will still be available. I’m sure that some owners will apply for the proper planning permission and carry on.

Did they not say that planning permission would be refused for all properties in RPZs. Which is pretty much a complete ban. Sure some people will rent out their PPR for a few weeks, but they would be looking to host tourists.

AlmightyCushion

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

There are going to be many knock on effects to this change other than the obvious.

While the summer months and at weekends, the majority of the short term lets are probably occupied by tourists that spend money in the local economy. I have noticed that during the week, a lot of small businesses are using short term lets to house their employees that are traveling for work.

Once short term lets are gone, costs will go up and make it less economical for small businesses to compete for those projects. This will drive up costs of business and that won't help the wider economy.

They'll just have to use a traditional BnB or hotel then.

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

They'll just have to use a traditional BnB or hotel then.

Which would be roughly the same price as AirBnB anyway!

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Which would be roughly the same price as AirBnB anyway!

Availability is the issue.
Availability is already an issue- without further constraining supply.
Result = prices rise for everyone- until a new equilibrium is reached.
Aka- prices for short term accommodation- are going to rise.

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

Short term lets will still be available. I’m sure that some owners will apply for the proper planning permission and carry on.

All 4 Dublin local authorities have issued statements to the effect that they have no intention of granting the required planning permission- in addition the Minister has said that no such permissions should be granted in any of the RPZs.

AlmightyCushion

The_Conductor wrote: »

Availability is the issue.
Availability is already an issue- without further constraining supply.
Result = prices rise for everyone- until a new equilibrium is reached.
Aka- prices for short term accommodation- are going to rise.

And if you take residential properties and use them for short term lets you do the same thing to the residential market.

The_Conductor

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

And if you take residential properties and use them for short term lets you do the same thing to the residential market.

However- the numbers involved have been shown to be less than a tenth those originally suggested by the Minister- which as a percentage of the residential market is a much smaller proportion than its percentage of the short term accommodation sector. We have in the region of 9,000 hotel rooms either on-stream or due to come on-stream by 2020- this is acknowledged to be roughly 1,200 fewer than needed for the greater Dublin area. Into this mix- we're tossing demand for another 1,870 rooms (possibly more- if you accept that the 1870 are whole properties and not single hotel rooms)- into the mix.

I.e. we are taking as much as 18-20% of capacity out of the current short term sector in Dublin.

The logical thing to do- would be allow construction of say another 2k hotel rooms as central as possible- however, then you'll have people come out of the woodwork stating how dare you build another 2,000 hotel rooms- when we have 10,000 homeless- we need to build social housing units instead.

The different sectors are all interlinked with one another- if you meddle in one part of the equation- you have knock-on effects in another.

Yes- it'll be good to have an additional 1,870 units hitting the residential accommodation market- however, it is to the detriment of the short term sector as a whole- which will have to take up the slack elsewhere- which means higher prices for anyone who has to visit to Dublin- which means some people just won't visit Dublin- some business just won't happen, some people relying on the availability of accommodation- will find their costs shooting up- and choose to exit whatever it is they are doing- rather than try to absorb yet higher costs.

There is a lot of integration in the accommodation sector- which is why these units worked as short term lets- if you loose them and don't replace them- the knock on effects could be massive.

AlmightyCushion

You are contradicting yourself. You say we can't build another 2,000 hotel rooms because people will complain yet you also say we're building 9,000 rooms between now and 2020.

runawaybishop

Graham wrote: »

Resectoring/reshuffling residential property back into the residential sector is one small step in the right direction.

That's not to say there aren't other areas that need fixing/addressing.

That is not what this legislation is supposed to do. It is supposed to increase long term rental property availability. That is it's goal, to force landlords who left a punitive rental section back in. The threat is very much rent long term or leave. Many landlords chose to leave

It will, in the short term, have a very minor impact on long term rental properties, a larger effect on residential properties and over the long term contribute to the decline in numbers of long term rental landlords.

The rental policies for the last few years pretty much only favour REITs and are directly contributing to the current shortage and record high rents.

Graham

Whatever the stated goal might be, returning residential property back to the housing market in any form is a good thing.

Even if there were no housing crisis, legislation of this type would be necessary.

The_Conductor

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself. You say we can't build another 2,000 hotel rooms because people will complain yet you also say we're building 9,000 rooms between now and 2020.

No- we're building in the region of 5,400 hotel beds between 2016 and 2020- ontop of the 4,000 currently present- that is a gross of 9,200 (according to Fáilte Ireland- I'm not sure why it doesn't add up). We'll have a little over 9,000 beds on stream by 2020- which Fáilte Ireland stated (before short term lets were taken out of the equation)- was to be 1,100 short of absolute necessity by 2020- and now we have another 2k units coming out of the short term sector on top of that. Thats what I meant.

By the way- when I said on-stream- I meant available- not under construction- and its the gross- pre-existing stock plus new builds- we most certainly don't have 9k hotel beds under construction- the actual number is probably in the region of 5,400 units (since 2016- and projected to the end of 2020).

Between 2018 and the end of 2020- the number of hotel beds to be added to the stock in Dublin is a little under 3k units.

We need another 3k units- but they're not even at planning stages- and even if they were- it would be 2021 or later before they could start being delivered- however, there isn't even planning in for them.

It really is ridiculous that these rules are being imposed, the property owner owes no one a home and they should be allowed to do as they please in order to make the business work the way they want and if that’s airbnb then so be it.

My own opinion is the new rules will be totally ignored by the majority of Airbnb hosts. It will be very difficult to enforce the rules and you can be sure lots of ways around things are being thought up by hosts as we speak.

AlmightyCushion

The_Conductor wrote: »

No- we're building in the region of 5,400 hotel beds between 2016 and 2020- ontop of the 4,000 currently present- that is a gross of 9,200 (according to Fáilte Ireland- I'm not sure why it doesn't add up). We'll have a little over 9,000 beds on stream by 2020- which Fáilte Ireland stated (before short term lets were taken out of the equation)- was to be 1,100 short of absolute necessity by 2020- and now we have another 2k units coming out of the short term sector on top of that. Thats what I meant.

By the way- when I said on-stream- I meant available- not under construction- and its the gross- pre-existing stock plus new builds- we most certainly don't have 9k hotel beds under construction- the actual number is probably in the region of 5,400 units (since 2016- and projected to the end of 2020).

Between 2018 and the end of 2020- the number of hotel beds to be added to the stock in Dublin is a little under 3k units.

We need another 3k units- but they're not even at planning stages- and even if they were- it would be 2021 or later before they could start being delivered- however, there isn't even planning in for them.

You missed my point. You said we need another 2,000 on top of the 9,000 but can't build them because people will complain about it. Can you not see the contradiction in that statement?

Regardless, these are residential units. A shortage in the hospitality sector should not be filled by removing stock from the residential sector especially when we have a much, much larger shortage in the residential sector.

Carlos Slow Traitor

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

It really is ridiculous that these rules are being imposed, the property owner owes no one a home and they should be allowed to do as they please in order to make the business work the way they want and if that’s airbnb then so be it.

My own opinion is the new rules will be totally ignored by the majority of Airbnb hosts. It will be very difficult to enforce the rules and you can be sure lots of ways around things are being thought up by hosts as we speak.

Running a business requires regulations. A private home is just that. A home. NOT a business.

Dav010

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Running a business requires regulations. A private home is just that. A home. NOT a business.

Are all types of privately owned rental properties not businesses? Isn’t the aim to make profit by charging for the use of the property by someone else? Do you think REITs consider these huge apartment blocks their “homes”?

A house you don’t live in is not your home, particularly when it is a buy-to-let investment. This is just silly.

Graham

Whether you consider it a home/investment or business isn't particularly relevant.

If it is a residential property, there is no automatic right to convert it to anything else whether for business or other reasons.