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

Samuel T. Cogley

Bluefoam wrote: »

Who are the lefties?

Empty house tax, this has international precedent.
Forced letting of spare rooms would be in conflict of our Constitution, which protects the home. It doesn't however protect houses belonging to businesses, such as commercial landlords.

There is a double protection on private property in the Consitution, it doesn't matter who it belongs to.

Andycap8

davindub wrote: »

Sure we will find out for certain next year, which is better than guessing now.

True. And if this falls flat on its face, will there be any repercussions? Nope.

AlmightyCushion

Andycap8 wrote: »

I hope everyone is well aware that the hotel & hospitality lobby groups were behind the NYC & San Fran clamp downs on AirBNB.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the-hotel-industrys-plan-to-combat-airbnb.html

The only winner here is Dublin hotel owners & senior management.

Those properties which are 100% rented out on Airbnb are unlikely to come back onto the rental market. They'll be sold. The long term rent won't provide a sufficient return and many owners simply don't want the hassle of dealing with long term tenants - this won't change that.

The 3,000 figure touted by many of the politicians & SJW activists is not backed up by anything you could stand over. If memory serves me correctly it was a point in time data scrap In August of the site so made no allowance for how long an entire house is available or what type of property it was (note, August is out of term for universities - most dedicated student accommodation providers rent their units out over the summer on airbnb).

The "huge return" figures typically sited in media reports are based on information from AirDNA or other scrapping websites - these websites can't distinguish between days that are booked and days that are blocked out by the owner. They also can't distinguish between dates that are unavailable due to minimum stays (i.e. in a minimum stay of 3 nights - you can't rent out periods of less than 3 days between guests). Airbnb said there was about 700-900 units full time available on airbnb. So that's your likely pool. That won't make a blind bit of difference to anything other than stopping lower income families or groups being able to come to Ireland for a weekend at a reasonable price.

Who is going to buy them? It's going to be someone who is planning on living in it or someone who will rent it out. These properties coming back in to the residential market isn't going to solve the housing crisis but it will help.

Pkiernan

Bluefoam wrote: »

Who are the lefties?

Empty house tax, this has international precedent.
Forced letting of spare rooms would be in conflict of our Constitution, which protects the home. It doesn't however protect houses belonging to businesses, such as commercial landlords.

The same people who think landlords are the cause of homelessness.

And why shouldn't you be forced to rent a spare room? Surely it's better for you to give a homeless person somewhere to sleep? Or are you too selfish?

Bluefoam

Pkiernan wrote: »

Bluefoam wrote: »

Who are the lefties?

Empty house tax, this has international precedent.
Forced letting of spare rooms would be in conflict of our Constitution, which protects the home. It doesn't however protect houses belonging to businesses, such as commercial landlords.

The same people who think landlords are the cause of homelessness.

And why shouldn't you be forced to rent a spare room? Surely it's better for you to give a homeless person somewhere to sleep? Or are you too selfish?

We'll I don't classify as a lefty based on your definition. I do however believe that businesses should comply with planning and regulation. As for me providing a room for a homeless person, it will already be occupied for much of the year by a short term let.

jimbobaloobob

What I don't like is that to apply for short term letting permission will be at the discression of the co councils
They say they are inevitably going to say no. Why have a process that's a waste of time? Also sounds to me like it could be open to corruption and who you know to get permission.

Andycap8

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Who is going to buy them? It's going to be someone who is planning on living in it or someone who will rent it out. These properties coming back in to the residential market isn't going to solve the housing crisis but it will help.

There is plenty of pent-up demand for houses & apartments in Dublin. 1000 units is less than 1% of DCC's housing stock & compares with 8,000 transactions in Dublin as a whole in the first half of 2018.

While it might provide a basis point of price suppression, it is again effectively taking a stick to the private sector for what is 100% the fault of central & local government.

And when I say the private sector, I really mean the individual taxpayer as opposed to big business. If this was such a "crisis" then why are they still approving hotels & student accommodation. They're going to use the planning system to regulate out of existence all full-time aribnb listings meanwhile the same planning system is being used to stymie high rise buildings.

This action will affect very few people (I'm assuming many of the owners of those 1000 full time properties are multi-property owners).

robp

Bluefoam wrote: »

robp wrote: »

4ensic15 wrote: »

lookr wrote: »

This regulation exists to protect the public interest and is totally logical. Yes, landlords earning supernormal rental returns are going to lose an advantage but such is life. All business ventures are vulnerable to the external risk of government regulation. Landlords renting out properties through Airbnb should have seen this coming a mile away. I don't know why anyone is shocked.

Just like people are not entitled to do "whatever they want" with the cars that they own, they are not entitled to do "whatever they want" with property. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed that these rights are not absolute. They are limited in order to reduce negative externalities.

There are obviously lots of complicated problems with our property market, and this is just one part of a much larger puzzle. But as a taxpaying tenant living in Dublin city, I do not support the manner in which Airbnb is contributing to market failure. I don't understand why anyone who doesn't have a vested interest would.

I expect the government to follow Barcelona's lead and gain access to Airbnb's relevant data. This will make enforcement much easier.

Any landlord who has planning permission to do it can continue. All that is happening is a clampdown on unauthorised use.

I guess there is a certain cynicism to the usefulness of the planning system given that it has actually blocked the development of highrise in Dublin which could reduce prices.

High-rise is permitted in Ireland. In fact the government released a paper recently detailing how is should be applied with regard to the residential market. However, the barrier is asset inflation and the cost to return of building high-rise. Developers make more money from lower buildings. If all the Airbnb landlords/moonlighting hotel operators are so concerned about the housing crisis why don't the do something about it and build some high-rise again.

I have mentioned this before, but a landlord painting themselves as a 'homeowner' is disingenuous. They are a commercial entity, same as a hotelier, shop owner or other business & should be treated as such.

High rise is routinly denied planning permission and large numbers of objectors will frequently attempt to block them. Asset inflation is not bad for encouraging high rise. Quite the opposite.
Airbnbs motivation is to make money, just like all landlords and like the way all tenants want to reduce their costs and there is not sinister or dirty as you imply in your subtext. Anyway it is hard to argue that the planning system has been effective in Dublin's case.

robp

Bluefoam wrote: »

Pkiernan wrote: »

It'll be interesting to hear what the lefties will want after next June when homelessness is still rising.

Empty house tax, folliwed by forced letting of spare rooms.

Who are the lefties?

Empty house tax, this has international precedent.
Forced letting of spare rooms would be in conflict of our Constitution, which protects the home. It doesn't however protect houses belonging to businesses, such as commercial landlords.

It is pretty interesting that this is considered leftie. Practices such as rent controls have long been used. We had rent controls right through the deeply conservative 1940s and 1950s.
At a fundamental level, rent controls and Airbnb bans are leftie because they are an attempt by a Gov to centrally plan a solution. Of course, as always this is doomed to fail in Dublin, just like everywhere else.

4ensic15

robp wrote: »

It is pretty interesting that this is considered leftie. Practices such as rent controls have long been used. We had rent controls right through the deeply conservative 1940s and 1950s.
.

The rent controls did not apply to all property in the 1940s and 1950s. In any case there was no inflation and the property market was on its knees in the 40's and 50's. The rent controls were an overhang from the First World War and the main beneficiaries were the middle class. There were appalling tenements in the 40's and 50's who did not benefit from rent control. It is ludicrous to propose that rent control is a left-wing phenomenon in all circumstances.

LuckyLloyd

Andycap8 wrote: »

I hope everyone is well aware that the hotel & hospitality lobby groups were behind the NYC & San Fran clamp downs on AirBNB.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/technology/inside-the-hotel-industrys-plan-to-combat-airbnb.html

That may very well be the case, but opposition in Dublin (and other Irish urban areas) is not being driven solely or even in large part by hotel lobbies.

Andycap8 wrote: »

The only winner here is Dublin hotel owners & senior management.

Nah. People living beside airbnbs (or similar - this isn't an attack on a company, but on a practice) in residential areas who did not sign up to live in a hotel are winners. People currently looking to buy or rent residential units in areas with heavy airbnb (or similar) proliferation are winners. The concept of planning permission is a winner. And on an overall level, the general effort to tackle the current housing crisis is a winner, as this solves one small part of the problem and moves the focus on to other aspects of same.

Andycap8 wrote: »

Those properties which are 100% rented out on Airbnb are unlikely to come back onto the rental market. They'll be sold. The long term rent won't provide a sufficient return and many owners simply don't want the hassle of dealing with long term tenants - this won't change that.

You don't know that to a certainty. But, even so, if they come back on the market it helps the market as people looking to buy move into them and free up rental capacity elsewhere. The effect of converting residential units back to their proper assigned purpose is a boon for the fluidity of both the retail and rental housing markets.

Andycap8 wrote: »

The 3,000 figure touted by many of the politicians & SJW activists is not backed up by anything you could stand over. If memory serves me correctly it was a point in time data scrap In August of the site so made no allowance for how long an entire house is available or what type of property it was (note, August is out of term for universities - most dedicated student accommodation providers rent their units out over the summer on airbnb).

The "huge return" figures typically sited in media reports are based on information from AirDNA or other scrapping websites - these websites can't distinguish between days that are booked and days that are blocked out by the owner. They also can't distinguish between dates that are unavailable due to minimum stays (i.e. in a minimum stay of 3 nights - you can't rent out periods of less than 3 days between guests). Airbnb said there was about 700-900 units full time available on airbnb. So that's your likely pool. That won't make a blind bit of difference to anything other than stopping lower income families or groups being able to come to Ireland for a weekend at a reasonable price.

So then it must not be such a boon for the "hotel lobby" eh? And not such a big issue in general, right? :rolleyes:

Arguing the figures seems to be the last refuge of the scoundrels in this instance. Go on and search airbnb / booking.com / etc in the Dublin area right now. An abundance of fine residential units being let out as a hotel solution. Every one of them converted back to their proper regulated use is a win.

runawaybishop

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Who is going to buy them? It's going to be someone who is planning on living in it or someone who will rent it out. These properties coming back in to the residential market isn't going to solve the housing crisis but it will help.

No one will buy to rent them out and if they are bought to live in that's worse as rentals have higher density. This will not help the rental market. It is papering over a crack but hey, it looks good and makes foolish people think they government are sticking it to the nasty landlords.

Bluefoam

runawaybishop wrote: »

it looks good and makes foolish people think they government are sticking it to the nasty landlords.

I think this is the crux of the matter, people are taking these measures personally. they think its an attack on them. It's not, it's about regulation of business.

lookr

runawaybishop wrote: »

No one will buy to rent them out and if they are bought to live in that's worse as rentals have higher density. This will not help the rental market. It is papering over a crack but hey, it looks good and makes foolish people think they government are sticking it to the nasty landlords.

The people who buy them to live in would otherwise be stuck renting. A lot of people don't want to be in the rental market, they are stuck there because they can't afford to buy. It's a vicious cycle.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Taking the piss by using residential properties for holiday lets.

We have planning laws for exactly this reason - to ensure that the needs of society are met and properly balanced against the rights of property owners.

If you want to rent out a holiday property, you need to ensure that the property you are renting out is classed as a holiday property. If it's not, then you are in breach of planning law.

The government aren't changing anything, simply calling to enforce long-standing rules.

Landlords know damn well that they are not legally permitted to rent out residential properties on AirBnB. But they do it anyway.

These properties need to go back into the market proper; either sold or rented to long-term tenants.

What's to stop LL's reclassifing the properties as holiday properties and putting them back on airbnb?

pixelburp

A lot of arguments against this legislation seem to be boiling down to the whole "Perfect is the enemy of good", that because it won't immediately solve the housing issue it shouldn't be tried. As LuckyLloyd mentions, just go on AirBnB right now, and search your location; if it's anything like mine you'll find a (tbh) somewhat objectionable number of perfectly suitable residential units being used as de-facto hotels by those who are clearly not owner occupiers. Yet they should be allowed continue their obvious manipulation of market loopholes, while a demonstrable issue with a lack of housing exists, because ... reasons?

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

What's to stop LL's reclassifing the properties as holiday properties and putting them back on airbnb?

Planning permission regulations and process

LuckyLloyd

pixelburp wrote: »

A lot of arguments against this legislation seem to be boiling down to the whole "Perfect is the enemy of good", that because it won't immediately solve the housing issue it shouldn't be tried. As LuckyLloyd mentions, just go on AirBnB right now, and search your location; if it's anything like mine you'll find a (tbh) somewhat objectionable number of perfectly suitable residential units being used as de-facto hotels by those who are clearly not owner occupiers. Yet they should be allowed continue their obvious manipulation of market loopholes, while a demonstrable issue with a lack of housing exists, because ... reasons?

Money. That's all that it really boils down to. People's easy cash cow (their local residential community or societal environment be damned) matters far more to them than anything else.

runawaybishop

pixelburp wrote: »

A lot of arguments against this legislation seem to be boiling down to the whole "Perfect is the enemy of good", that because it won't immediately solve the housing issue it shouldn't be tried. As LuckyLloyd mentions, just go on AirBnB right now, and search your location; if it's anything like mine you'll find a (tbh) somewhat objectionable number of perfectly suitable residential units being used as de-facto hotels by those who are clearly not owner occupiers. Yet they should be allowed continue their obvious manipulation of market loopholes, while a demonstrable issue with a lack of housing exists, because ... reasons?

If people are in violation of planning laws then they should be enforced, sure.

There are things that will actually help the people that are crying out for properties but instead we waste time on stuff like this.

runawaybishop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Money. That's all that it really boils down to. People's easy cash cow (their local residential community or societal environment be damned) matters far more to them than anything else.

Mad isn't it, a business worried about money.

If they don't like the money they make then sure they can just get out out the business, that won't have any downsides!

It's all stick and no carrot. When even threshold are recognising this you know the situation is totally fubar.

pixelburp

runawaybishop wrote: »

If people are in violation of planning laws then they should be enforced, sure.

There are things that will actually help the people that are crying out for properties but instead we waste time on stuff like this.

Again, I don't think anyone is suggesting this is some cure-all panacea, but rather a closing / addressing of an issue where the law is clearly behind the technology, or rather a service that has been warped beyond it's slightly ... hippyish optimism over sharing spare bedrooms with strangers (which, if the new legislation works, would actually restore AirBnB to that notion).

I don't doubt the politicians are doing it for the publicity and kudos either, but as with much of politics, the optics make sense, insofar as it's announcing to those quasi-hoteliers that they're in the governments sights. And rightly so.

LuckyLloyd

runawaybishop wrote: »

If people are in violation of planning laws then they should be enforced, sure.

There are things that will actually help the people that are crying out for properties but instead we waste time on stuff like this.

Letting out a residential unit as a short term hotel type option *is* a violation of PPR. That's the root of these enhanced regulations / enforcement legislation.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Mad isn't it, a business worried about money.

If they don't like the money they make then sure they can just get out out the business, that won't have any downsides!

It's all stick and no carrot. When even threshold are recognising this you know the situation is totally fubar.

I have long said on this forum that the eviction process for overholding tenants or those in violation of their tenancy agreements needs to expedited, which is the core issue that landlords have. But the point is that issues with long term rental agreements need to be tackled and fixed, and people either take part in the business on that basis or they don't. Moving residential properties into the hotel sector absent of planning permission is not a good outcome for society on any level.

runawaybishop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Letting out a residential unit as a short term hotel type option *is* a violation of PPR. That's the root of these enhanced regulations / enforcement legislation.



I have long said on this forum that the eviction process for overholding tenants or those in violation of their tenancy agreements needs to expedited, which is the core issue that landlords have. But the point is that issues with long term rental agreements need to be tackled and fixed, and people either take part in the business on that basis or they don't. Moving residential properties into the hotel sector absent of planning permission is not a good outcome for society on any level.

Taken in isolation I have no problem with these changes. Enforcing correct planning and regulating Airbnb sounds all fine.

However, these changes are not isolated and can have serious knock on effects to our currently stressed housing/rental market.

Landlords moved to Airbnb partially because long term rentals began to not make business sense, forcing them out again does not suddenly make long term rentals more viable. This is a problem. If landlords keep getting the stick they will continue to exit the market and we will be left with REITs owning the market. I don't think this is something we want.

awec

runawaybishop wrote: »

Taken in isolation I have no problem with these changes. Enforcing correct planning and regulating Airbnb sounds all fine.

However, these changes are not isolated and can have serious knock on effects to our currently stressed housing/rental market.

Landlords moved to Airbnb partially because long term rentals began to not make business sense, forcing them out again does not suddenly make long term rentals more viable. This is a problem. If landlords keep getting the stick they will continue to exit the market and we will be left with REITs owning the market. I don't think this is something we want.

Meh.

REITs putting properties on the rental market is infinitely better for the housing market than landlords putting properties on Airbnb.

LuckyLloyd

awec wrote: »

Meh.

REITs putting properties on the rental market is infinitely better for the housing market than landlords putting properties on Airbnb.

Yep, fairly easy choice to make there.

And in any case, these properties will return to the market in one form or another and that will help all aspects of it.

runawaybishop

awec wrote: »

Meh.

REITs putting properties on the rental market is infinitely better for the housing market than landlords putting properties on Airbnb.

REITs won't be buying Airbnb type properties. What they will do however, is raise the rent to the max every year and have termination notices ready the instant a tenant is late. We have already seen this on the forum. There is no negotiation with them.

runawaybishop

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yep, fairly easy choice to make there.

And in any case, these properties will return to the market in one form or another and that will help all aspects of it.

Seriously, how are you not seeing the cause of the current issues and welcoming things that make them worse? It just reads like hatred for private landlords.

Have the current lump of landlords exiting the market made the situation better like?

CrabRevolution

The "don't you realise that this will force landlords to stop renting on air bnb and sell their property? " posts remind me of a tweet when the UK introduced a plastic bag levy saying you could stick it to the hippy lefties and their bag levy by bringing your own bag from home....

runawaybishop

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The "don't you realise that this will force landlords to stop renting on air bnb and sell their property? " posts remind me of a tweet when the UK introduced a plastic bag levy saying you could stick it to the hippy lefties and their bag levy by bringing your own bag from home....

Except we have had several landlords on these forums exiting the long term rental market for Airbnb due to restrictive legislation who have said the next step is to exit the market. This is also backed up by the landlords already exiting the market. This isn't guesswork, it's happening already. For every 2 landlords that leave only one joins.

That's what I don't understand, all these claims that this stuff won't hurt the market despite clear evidence that it does.

AlmightyCushion

runawaybishop wrote: »

No one will buy to rent them out and if they are bought to live in that's worse as rentals have higher density. This will not help the rental market. It is papering over a crack but hey, it looks good and makes foolish people think they government are sticking it to the nasty landlords.

An owner occupier may have less density than a rental but when on AirBNB that property had 0 people living in it. If it gets bought by an owner occupier, it will still have at least 1 person in it which is better than the 0 before when it was an AirBNB.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Except we have had several landlords on these forums exiting the long term rental market for Airbnb due to restrictive legislation who have said the next step is to exit the market. This is also backed up by the landlords already exiting the market. This isn't guesswork, it's happening already. For every 2 landlords that leave only one joins.

That's what I don't understand, all these claims that this stuff won't hurt the market despite clear evidence that it does.

How is it hurting the market if a property that was on AirBNB is now up for sale? Sure, it might be better that it was put up for rent instead of going to an owner occupier but overall it means more properties in the residential market