Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Air BnB [and other platforms] to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas
Options
Comments
-
AlmightyCushion wrote: »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.
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
It would be better if we encouraged more housing in total, not everyone wants to buy. A more attractive market for everyone, not one that is very risky and has a very bad return.0 -
Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 33519
runawaybishop wrote: »It would be better if we encouraged more housing in total, not everyone wants to buy. A more attractive market for everyone, not one that is very risky and has a very bad return.
I agree, we need to increase the amount of housing. This is going to bring more housing back to the residential market. How is this a bad thing? Sure, it would be better if they were brought on to the market as rentals but even if they aren't it is better than the status quo.0 -
AlmightyCushion wrote: »I agree, we need to increase the amount of housing. This is going to bring more housing back to the residential market. How is this a bad thing? Sure, it would be better if they were brought on to the market as rentals but even if they aren't it is better than the status quo.
It's not a terrible thing, but it isn't a good thing taken as part of an overall solution. Most of the properties affected by this would have been long term rentals originally and while we may end up with more residential stock will we will still end up overall with more people looking for somewhere to live.
It's not that regulation of Airbnb and planning shouldn't happen, it's that we should seriously focus on the causes and not the symptoms.0 -
I am against rent controls. I am against them in 2018 and I would have been against them in the 1940s. One of the problems of rent controls is that they block gentrification and investment in rental properties. We have every reason to believe that they contributed to the poor state of the tenements.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.
Rent controls are left wing. It is basic political philosophy. Even if Hitler proposed them they would still be left wing. Or to more precise left wing with an asterisk because the far right has often liked rent controls but that is an exception.0 -
runawaybishop wrote: »AlmightyCushion wrote: »I agree, we need to increase the amount of housing. This is going to bring more housing back to the residential market. How is this a bad thing? Sure, it would be better if they were brought on to the market as rentals but even if they aren't it is better than the status quo.
It's not a terrible thing, but it isn't a good thing taken as part of an overall solution. Most of the properties affected by this would have been long term rentals originally and while we may end up with more residential stock will we will still end up overall with more people looking for somewhere to live.
It's not that regulation of Airbnb and planning shouldn't happen, it's that we should seriously focus on the causes and not the symptoms.
One of the key causes is that supply has left long term rental and owner occupier to become tourist short term let. So returning short term tourist lets to the residential market improves supply.
But the issue is this: people who own property struggle with the idea that their property can go down in value. Until people accept that fixing the accommodation means rents coming down and sales prices coming down, things will not improve long term. No one is owed rents. No one is owed a capital gains killing.
My experience dealing with Irish landlords was that they were catastrophic. Given the numbers trying to keep deposits, the numbers issuing illegal eviction notices, it was a headache. I find it harc to be sympathetic for those who arr not complying with planning while making a lot of money on airbnb. Irish regs regarding evictions are less onerous than those in other countries in my experience. For me the issue is that rental market participants don't trust each other. So landlords do airbnb as it brings more money with fewer obligations and tenants starve them selves to try and buy so they don't have to deal with landlords.
But at the end of the day, increased suppky means property prices go down and most owners don't want to recognise this until they cash in. Supply will reduce the value of some properties but obviously not theirs.0 -
Advertisement
-
runawaybishop wrote: »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.
As someone who has lived in a REIT controlled apartment for 5+ years this is not true.0 -
runawaybishop wrote: »It would be better if we encouraged more housing in total, not everyone wants to buy. A more attractive market for everyone, not one that is very risky and has a very bad return.
More rental accommodation is coming:- https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/irish-life-unit-buys-262-south-dublin-apartments-for-rental-1.3492279
- https://propertyeu.info/Nieuws/Tristan-fund-agrees-PRS-apartments-buy-in-Dublin/02e52fe7-99b4-49f5-afca-98de72ed1f37
- https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/hundreds-of-dwellings-to-come-on-market-in-south-dublin-1.3679511
I don't believe that most people who are renting want to be renting. In most cases they are renting because they have to. They are locked out of the property market. Yet we keep hearing yarns from vested interests about avocado toast and people desiring the "flexibility" of rentals.
For example, here is John Moran from JLL commercial property and investment management services:
I think we can agree that we need more housing in total, but I do not believe that more people should be shifted into the rental market. Who does that benefit?0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »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.
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.
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.
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.
The strategy being used by local lobby groups is the exact same in European cities as it was in NYC & San Fran. Citing (i) gross entire units available during the year (regardless of how long they're available for), (ii) claiming landlords are all making a fortune, (iii) linking airbnb to increases in rents, (iv) a lack of regulations. Virtually all of these issues are completely baseless or error prone.
The noise complaint is total BS. This is nothing to do with airbnb. This is to do with Ireland's pathetic policing standards. It is the exact same for long term tenants with noisy or anti-social neighbors - when we lived in sandyford the cops told us to make a noise complaint to the EPA. Seriously, the bloody EPA!! That's what you get for your taxes. As for taxes, the govt generates way more tax from private individual landlords than it does from hotels or REITs.
Underlying all this animosity to airbnb is a problem which was created by central & local government and supported by NIMBYs (also the suggestive nature of modern complainers but that's another days argument). The biggest nimby of them all, the former IT environment editor has been pushing this anti-aribnb thing for a long time - he has stated he thinks Dublin is full and people should be forced down to Cork or Galway or other regional areas. That is the type of person behind this. Him, academics, the chattering class and lovers of Dubln's "architectural heritage". The same people who object to anything over 3 stories being built. This is a labor proposal, while their rising star, wanna-be TD AOR, is objecting to large new developments in St Annes and Howth. FG representatives are objecting to developments all over south Dublin. As for expanding public transport to provide rapid access to the city from the suburbs - well, we've POD & N Rock objecting to the metrolink & bus connects, you've virtually every TD & political party in south Dublin objecting to changing the green line luas line to metro. You've also got the unions objecting to bus connects and the while they're also objecting to increasing the frequency of the DART. You've the greens pushing ridiculous minimum apartment standards - while these are being addressed the pace is way to slow. The further & far left seem to object to absolutely everything.
Rents in Dublin are high because nothing is being built. If there was a crisis, then why are they still permitting new hotel, office & student accommodation developments? Why permit "big business" exacerbate the problem but not allow little guys make some decent money? This argument seems to be about reusing existing stock better - why are there 1000's of LA units vacant? Why aren't the increasing property tax to force underutilized houses back onto the market (seems every single party objects to this bizarrely)?
As for thisLuckyLloyd wrote: »Arguing the figures seems to be the last refuge of the scoundrels in this instance.
Right, because who needs to understand how the numbers are calculated and what the problems with them are? It's much easier to argue a nice wholesome simple narrative which pulls at feelings. This is pathetic. Either the business case for this new legislation stacks up or it doesn't. If it doesn't then this new legislation is simply an attempt to appease voters & make it look like the government are actually doing something about the problems i.e. this is more politics.
I look forward to all the kids paying excessive rents now, having families and then realizing the cost of actually visiting a major city with the kids when your only option is a double suite in a hotel. I look forward to them all calling on the Councillors of the future to object to new developments when their kids are exiting college and looking to find a place to rent.0 -
I find it harc to be sympathetic for those who arr not complying with planning while making a lot of money on airbnb.
have you anything, anything at all, to substantiate that claim?
On your wider point, you're entirely correct, everyone wants the property "crisis" fixed but no one who owns a property (the majority of people) wants the fix to affect their property prices. That is a contradictory position which, based on current voting structures, is unlikely to be challenged anytime soon.0 -
I find it harc to be sympathetic for those who arr not complying with planning while making a lot of money on airbnb.
have you anything, anything at all, to substantiate that claim?
On your wider point, you're entirely correct, everyone wants the property "crisis" fixed but no one who owns a property (the majority of people) wants the fix to affect their property prices. That is a contradictory position which, based on current voting structures, is unlikely to be challenged anytime soon.
tbh if people had obtained planning permission to convert from residemtial to short term holiday lets we would not be hearing much wailing.0 -
Advertisement
-
The strategy being used by local lobby groups is the exact same in European cities as it was in NYC & San Fran. Citing (i) gross entire units available during the year (regardless of how long they're available for), (ii) claiming landlords are all making a fortune, (iii) linking airbnb to increases in rents, (iv) a lack of regulations. Virtually all of these issues are completely baseless or error prone.
The fact that short term lets are operating outside of PPR is not baseless or error prone. Not is the suggestion that returning residential units to their appropriate use eases supply issues in the market. Residential units were never intended to be used as hotels. Why should they be allowed to be used as such? The suggested changes will still allow owner occupiers to let out rooms for short periods as per the original concept of airbnb. Seems fair enough.The noise complaint is total BS. This is nothing to do with airbnb. This is to do with Ireland's pathetic policing standards. It is the exact same for long term tenants with noisy or anti-social neighbors - when we lived in sandyford the cops told us to make a noise complaint to the EPA. Seriously, the bloody EPA!! That's what you get for your taxes. As for taxes, the govt generates way more tax from private individual landlords than it does from hotels or REITs.
I don't know what this rant has to really do with what is being discussed. Whatever about noise, having a flow of guests into the apartment / house beside you the whole time is irritating for obvious reasons beyond noise.Underlying all this animosity to airbnb is a problem which was created by central & local government and supported by NIMBYs (also the suggestive nature of modern complainers but that's another days argument). The biggest nimby of them all, the former IT environment editor has been pushing this anti-aribnb thing for a long time - he has stated he thinks Dublin is full and people should be forced down to Cork or Galway or other regional areas. That is the type of person behind this. Him, academics, the chattering class and lovers of Dubln's "architectural heritage". The same people who object to anything over 3 stories being built. This is a labor proposal, while their rising star, wanna-be TD AOR, is objecting to large new developments in St Annes and Howth. FG representatives are objecting to developments all over south Dublin. As for expanding public transport to provide rapid access to the city from the suburbs - well, we've POD & N Rock objecting to the metrolink & bus connects, you've virtually every TD & political party in south Dublin objecting to changing the green line luas line to metro. You've also got the unions objecting to bus connects and the while they're also objecting to increasing the frequency of the DART. You've the greens pushing ridiculous minimum apartment standards - while these are being addressed the pace is way to slow. The further & far left seem to object to absolutely everything.
I advocate building up. I advocate infrastructure investment. My thoughts are in the Infrastructure forum over the years on both topics. There are many things that must be done to improve the general situation in Dublin. Just because other items are on a to do list doesn't invalidate any individual item in isolation. And ultimately this legislation is not being introduced by a 'further / far left' government.Rents in Dublin are high because nothing is being built. If there was a crisis, then why are they still permitting new hotel, office & student accommodation developments? Why permit "big business" exacerbate the problem but not allow little guys make some decent money? This argument seems to be about reusing existing stock better - why are there 1000's of LA units vacant? Why aren't the increasing property tax to force underutilized houses back onto the market (seems every single party objects to this bizarrely)?
Vacancy is an issue that should be addressed, both in public and private stock. There should be vacancy tariffs and increasing property tax. No argument from me here. Again though, that doesn't invalidate the moves being discussed here.As for this
Right, because who needs to understand how the numbers are calculated and what the problems with them are? It's much easier to argue a nice wholesome simple narrative which pulls at feelings. This is pathetic. Either the business case for this new legislation stacks up or it doesn't. If it doesn't then this new legislation is simply an attempt to appease voters & make it look like the government are actually doing something about the problems i.e. this is more politics.
What are the counter numbers so?I look forward to all the kids paying excessive rents now, having families and then realizing the cost of actually visiting a major city with the kids when your only option is a double suite in a hotel. I look forward to them all calling on the Councillors of the future to object to new developments when their kids are exiting college and looking to find a place to rent.
The price and availability of hotel accommodation should not require a sacrifice of our PPR, our residential communities and ultimately the needs of our society. I couldn't give a **** about hotel accommodation in Dublin. And I fully support the communities of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, New York, etc, etc giving airbnb and others like it the heave ho. I'll pay extra for my holiday if it gives me a better chance at getting a place to live the rest of the year, no worries.0 -
Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 33519
More rental accommodation is coming:- https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/irish-life-unit-buys-262-south-dublin-apartments-for-rental-1.3492279
- https://propertyeu.info/Nieuws/Tristan-fund-agrees-PRS-apartments-buy-in-Dublin/02e52fe7-99b4-49f5-afca-98de72ed1f37
- https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/hundreds-of-dwellings-to-come-on-market-in-south-dublin-1.3679511
I don't believe that most people who are renting want to be renting. In most cases they are renting because they have to. They are locked out of the property market. Yet we keep hearing yarns from vested interests about avocado toast and people desiring the "flexibility" of rentals.
For example, here is John Moran from JLL commercial property and investment management services:
I think we can agree that we need more housing in total, but I do not believe that more people should be shifted into the rental market. Who does that benefit?
I think a lot more people would be happy renting if the rental sector worked right. The problem is property prices and rental prices are skyrocketing and there is very little supply of both. This is causing people to freak out and try and buy as soon as they can. If there was decent supply (for renting and buying), relatively inexpensive rents and property prices weren't skyrocketing then I think plenty of people would be putting off buying for a few years.0 -
Mod Note
Friendly reminder; Topic is "Air BnB to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas"0 -
AlmightyCushion wrote: »I think a lot more people would be happy renting if the rental sector worked right. The problem is property prices and rental prices are skyrocketing and there is very little supply of both. This is causing people to freak out and try and buy as soon as they can. If there was decent supply (for renting and buying), relatively inexpensive rents and property prices weren't skyrocketing then I think plenty of people would be putting off buying for a few years.
One big requirement for this is to make it easier to remove non-paying tenants. If that can be achieved then it is imperative that we move to a model where tenants who live in a property as their home, pay their rent and keep the property maintained should be treated as de facto owners (i.e. they cannot be kicked out easily if they are good tenants, especially not for renovations (unless they are given first refusal on moving back in)).
The essential point is that we move away from this attitude of I can do what I want with my property when the person who owns the property has decided they aren't going to live in the property themselves and it is being used to rent out to someone else who actually is using it as their home. Living in uncertainty and fear where you may not get to live in your home for a relatively indefinite period subject to being a good tenant is terribly unhealthy for society, especially in a society where a large portion of people will never buy a home. You will have crying and moaning but there is no good reason to implement the societal attitude in the manner outlined as follows;
De facto owners of properties for good tenants but an easier process to kick out tenants who don't keep up with their rent/maintain or improve the property.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »The fact that short term lets are operating outside of PPR is not baseless or error prone. Not is the suggestion that returning residential units to their appropriate use eases supply issues in the market. Residential units were never intended to be used as hotels. Why should they be allowed to be used as such? The suggested changes will still allow owner occupiers to let out rooms for short periods as per the original concept of airbnb. Seems fair enough.
Huh? PPRs? Who brought that up.
Appropriate Use? They're short term accommodation.
Residential accommodation, be it PPR or BTL or ST Letting - the "use" is the exact same. The only difference is the tenure.LuckyLloyd wrote: »I don't know what this rant has to really do with what is being discussed. Whatever about noise, having a flow of guests into the apartment / house beside you the whole time is irritating for obvious reasons beyond noise.
This is a direct response to your comment that those who benefit will be neighbors of Airbnb units. Other than presumably reduced noise, what other possible benefit could they get? For what reason would foot traffic be higher for a ST let compared with a LT occupied property? When you travel abroad do you hang around in your hotel all day slamming the door?LuckyLloyd wrote: »
I advocate building up. I advocate infrastructure investment. My thoughts are in the Infrastructure forum over the years on both topics. There are many things that must be done to improve the general situation in Dublin. Just because other items are on a to do list doesn't invalidate any individual item in isolation. And ultimately this legislation is not being introduced by a 'further / far left' government.
All the other items are the responsibility of the government (local & central). The point I am making here is, this is the government virtually overnight eradicating a private sector industry (no matter how small it is) because of their abject failure.LuckyLloyd wrote: »
Vacancy is an issue that should be addressed, both in public and private stock. There should be vacancy tariffs and increasing property tax. No argument from me here. Again though, that doesn't invalidate the moves being discussed here.
Well actually it kind of does. This interferes with individuals property rights which is similar to a CPO. In order for a CPO to be approved by the courts the state must show that there is a public need and that it attempted alternative non-invasive options which were not as detrimental to the affected property owner. While this isn't a direct outlawing of it, the fact they've said planning authorities will likely not permit it in high pressure areas means it is a de facto outlawing.LuckyLloyd wrote: »
What are the counter numbers so?
I'm not the one introducing or supporting the proposed legislation. The onus is on the government to support its legislation with arguments based in fact, not on anecdotes. Airbnb themselves stated in September that there was only 899 units full time in Dublin. And the Revenue have all the rental figures.LuckyLloyd wrote: »The price and availability of hotel accommodation should not require a sacrifice of our PPR, our residential communities and ultimately the needs of our society. I couldn't give a **** about hotel accommodation in Dublin. And I fully support the communities of Berlin, Paris, Barcelona, New York, etc, etc giving airbnb and others like it the heave ho. I'll pay extra for my holiday if it gives me a better chance at getting a place to live the rest of the year, no worries.
No offence, but that is pure hyperbolic rubbish. Outlawing professional airbnb in Dublin will make no difference to you getting a place to live the rest of the year.
But sure, it's Ireland, so everyone deserves the opportunity to live in the city center......just coz.0 -
-
That's an argument, that is trotted out in nearly every thread about renting, but no-one ever really thinks it through.Assetbacked wrote: »One big requirement for this is to make it easier to remove non-paying tenants.
Where do you propose to put the tenants, once they are evicted? They have to live somewhere unless you want them to live in tents in the middle of O'Connell street. They most likely won't get another private landlord to take them or they will still be in the same position, not paying rent, in a very short time. Social housing is most likely not available in the short term, so they probably are being put up at a hotel or hostel for a high price to the taxpayer.
I think a lot of unscrupulous people hide behind the laws to protect the genuine cases. Same as the UK.
I would favor tougher eviction laws for total non payment of rent as opposed to part payment with engagement with personal insolvency practicioners.
But none of this is related to airbnb. The issue with taking residential units out of an area is the inability of the market to replace these, an issue which exists since councils started planning how many resisential, commercial land is required to accommodate the needs of the local area. They under provide constantly rather than over provide.
Landlords who break the law like this are in the minority but I personnally hold these characters responsible for the introduction of the RTA and now we require stricter planning enforcement. Fines should be substancial to reflect this.0 -
Huh? PPRs? Who brought that up.
Appropriate Use? They're short term accommodation.
Residential accommodation, be it PPR or BTL or ST Letting - the "use" is the exact same. The only difference is the tenure.
PPR is the bedrock of this issue. The use is very different. If you don't see the difference between short term quasi hotel lets next store or longer term residents you probably won't "get" this conversation at all.This is a direct response to your comment that those who benefit will be neighbors of Airbnb units. Other than presumably reduced noise, what other possible benefit could they get? For what reason would foot traffic be higher for a ST let compared with a LT occupied property? When you travel abroad do you hang around in your hotel all day slamming the door?
The concept of residential communities is obviously foreign to you, so again you won't get this.All the other items are the responsibility of the government (local & central). The point I am making here is, this is the government virtually overnight eradicating a private sector industry (no matter how small it is) because of their abject failure.
It's not a valid "industry" if it depends on flouting of planning regulations to operate and essentially bypasses all of the regulations Hotels / B & Bs are subject to. It's cowboyism. Cowboyism is never a long term thing.Well actually it kind of does. This interferes with individuals property rights which is similar to a CPO. In order for a CPO to be approved by the courts the state must show that there is a public need and that it attempted alternative non-invasive options which were not as detrimental to the affected property owner. While this isn't a direct outlawing of it, the fact they've said planning authorities will likely not permit it in high pressure areas means it is a de facto outlawing.
Property rights :rolleyes:
Property rights are not absolute as per the constitution and have always been limited by Planning Permission.I'm not the one introducing or supporting the proposed legislation. The onus is on the government to support its legislation with arguments based in fact, not on anecdotes. Airbnb themselves stated in September that there was only 899 units full time in Dublin. And the Revenue have all the rental figures.
899 full time units coming onto the market helps the market. If that's the real truth this is worth doing. Particularly if it stops an upwards trend. And, again, Planning Permission is nothing new. This is enforcement of the status quo.No offence, but that is pure hyperbolic rubbish. Outlawing professional airbnb in Dublin will make no difference to you getting a place to live the rest of the year.
But sure, it's Ireland, so everyone deserves the opportunity to live in the city center......just coz.
I live in the city centre, I pay good money for the privilege. I love my city, it needs full time residents to function properly. Let tourists stay in the mandated hotels and B & Bs. The residential properties in the city centre (and this is far from solely being a Dublin city centre issue but I digress) should be for residents. We want diversity of use and a vibrancy. That will keep the tourist demand trotted out as a red herring in this argument as high as it is.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »PPR is the bedrock of this issue. The use is very different. If you don't see the difference between short term quasi hotel lets next store or longer term residents you probably won't "get" this conversation at all.
The concept of residential communities is obviously foreign to you, so again you won't get this.
It's not a valid "industry" if it depends on flouting of planning regulations to operate and essentially bypasses all of the regulations Hotels / B & Bs are subject to. It's cowboyism. Cowboyism is never a long term thing.
Property rights :rolleyes:
Property rights are not absolute as per the constitution and have always been limited by Planning Permission.
899 full time units coming onto the market helps the market. If that's the real truth this is worth doing. Particularly if it stops an upwards trend. And, again, Planning Permission is nothing new. This is enforcement of the status quo.
I live in the city centre, I pay good money for the privilege. I love my city, it needs full time residents to function properly. Let tourists stay in the mandated hotels and B & Bs. The residential properties in the city centre (and this is far from solely being a Dublin city centre issue but I digress) should be for residents. We want diversity of use and a vibrancy. That will keep the tourist demand trotted out as a red herring in this argument as high as it is.
It's not just the city centre that has Air BnB.0 -
We know it's in breach of planning. So what? Planning rules are not infallible. In this case, they are not proportionate or justifiable.
This is a transparent attempt to be seen to be 'doing something' about a lack of building activity. It's also a sop to hotels.
I hope they're completely ignored, in Dublin and in every other city they're introduced.
Sop to hotels is a loaded way of putting it, but why not? Hotels accommodate the great majority of tourists (who are one of our major industries), provide very significant numbers of jobs, use services, pay rates, have inspections and have to abide by h&s rules and so on. And registered / official b&bs do something similar. But if you read the lastest figures b&bs are being lost from the market as they cannot compete - given their overheads - with people who can just set up tourist accommodation with no regs, planning permission, h&s, or indeed anything beyond providing a bed. Tourism is an industry, and a very important one, it has to be regulated to keep up with the rest of the world.
Meanwhile those ranks of properties being syphoned off the housing stock to be used, uncontrolled, as holiday lets need to be made available to people who need houses. Apart from social need we are losing major firms who are fleeing Brexit simply because there is not the accommodation for their core employees/owners.
It is absolutely true that the nonsense that is apparently going on with landlords not being able to evict non-paying tenants should be dealt with. Tenants need protection, this does not mean they should be allowed to squat in a building, or trash it.
You can offer someone a lift in your car, but if you start offering 'lifts' in return for payment you have to have a license, appropriate insurance etc - or should you be able to put legal, full time taxi drivers out of work just because you feel like going out and making a few euros when it suits you?0 -
Advertisement
-
Mod Note
Off Topic Posts Deleted0 -
-
This may give a small short term bump to supply, as properties currently in short term rental either move back to long term rental or get sold off to owner occupiers (most likely at a lower occupancy level than they would have in long term rental).
However it damages supply in the long term.
Not enough high density appartment blocks are being built. they are not being built because developers are not confident of making profit. they are not confident of making profit because there is insufficient demand from investors to purchase the completed units at high enough prices. the market for these is overwhelmingly investors rather than owner occupiers.
There is insufficient demand at high enough prices partly because there has been a constant series of regulatory restraints put in the way of residential property investors making profits. RPZ rent controls, restrictions on evictions, banning Air bnb and plenty of talk of further government intervention. Basicly the cumulative effect of this is that more people are thinking : meh I will just put my money into stocks/bonds/managed funds rather than investing in residential property. the risk/return on residential is not compelling relative to other inevstments and i am wary of what government intervention might come next. This means less properties are going to be built.
The benefits that incumbent renters are getting, with added security of tenure and caps on rent increases, also give rise to (indirect) costs to people who are looking to find a place to rent. Capital is inherently mobile.
I am selling a place in Galway in the new year, have given my tenants notice. Not because of RPZs it is just too difficult to manage a place in Galway when i live in dublin. I had planned to use the proceeds to buy another property to let in Dublin and was planning on buying a place suitable for Air bnb. I am unlikely to buy a place for long term letting instead - I do already have another place let in Dublin that i am not planning on selling for the moment. There are more attractive investment alternatives especially because of uncertainty about what legal changes might come next.
Having said that I might still find a place that would be suitable for one of my kids to inherit and live in in dublin though(i.e. house not appartment), and rent it in the interim, but a few months ago i was going to invest in dublin resdiential property, now not so sure.0 -
This may give a small short term bump to supply, as properties currently in short term rental either move back to long term rental or get sold off to owner occupiers (most likely at a lower occupancy level than they would have in long term rental).
However it damages supply in the long term.
Not enough high density appartment blocks are being built. they are not being built because developers are not confident of making profit. they are not confident of making profit because there is insufficient demand from investors to purchase the completed units at high enough prices. the market for these is overwhelmingly investors rather than owner occupiers.
There is insufficient demand at high enough prices partly because there has been a constant series of regulatory restraints put in the way of residential property investors making profits. RPZ rent controls, restrictions on evictions, banning Air bnb and plenty of talk of further government intervention. Basicly the cumulative effect of this is that more people are thinking : meh I will just put my money into stocks/bonds/managed funds rather than investing in residential property. the risk/return on residential is not compelling relative to other inevstments and i am wary of what government intervention might come next. This means less properties are going to be built.
The benefits that incumbent renters are getting, with added security of tenure and caps on rent increases, also give rise to (indirect) costs to people who are looking to find a place to rent. Capital is inherently mobile.
I am selling a place in Galway in the new year, have given my tenants notice. Not because of RPZs it is just too difficult to manage a place in Galway when i live in dublin. I had planned to use the proceeds to buy another property to let in Dublin and was planning on buying a place suitable for Air bnb. I am unlikely to buy a place for long term letting instead - I do already have another place let in Dublin that i am not planning on selling for the moment. There are more attractive investment alternatives especially because of uncertainty about what legal changes might come next.
Having said that I might still find a place that would be suitable for one of my kids to inherit and live in in dublin though(i.e. house not appartment), and rent it in the interim, but a few months ago i was going to invest in dublin resdiential property, now not so sure.
I think I missed your point... are you suggesting that investors and speculators are better for residential housing than owner occupiers?0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »PPR is the bedrock of this issue. The use is very different. If you don't see the difference between short term quasi hotel lets next store or longer term residents you probably won't "get" this conversation at all.
I am not one to usually point out this sort of thing as I usually see no reason in an informal environment but I think your use of PPR = planning permission is confusing people. PPR = principal primary residence and is not a correct acronym for planning permission, PP would be the way to shorten it.you can offer someone a lift in your car, but if you start offering 'lifts' in return for payment you have to have a license, appropriate insurance etc - or should you be able to put legal, full time taxi drivers out of work just because you feel like going out and making a few euros when it suits you?
This is pretty much exactly what uber offers. An opportunity for people to make some money with their car, reduces the cost of getting a taxi and makes them more plentiful. Uber is allowed in many countries in the world and is a very very popular due to is superior service and lower costs. Anyone I know living in a country with uber never uses taxis anymore as uber is far better.
Both Uber and Airbnb on full properties should be allowed and none of this government interference.
If the government really wanted to get people back letting their places long term they need to scrap rent controls so people can charge what the market will allow, give LLs more rights particulary around evictions (i.e. bad tenants out within 1 to 3 months max), actually force bad tenants to pay back rent/damage even if its taken from their wages/dole directly, reduce the crippling levels of taxation on LLs etc etc.0 -
I had planned to use the proceeds to buy another property to let in Dublin and was planning on buying a place suitable for Air bnbHaving said that I might still find a place that would be suitable for one of my kids to inherit and live in in dublin though(i.e. house not appartment), and rent it in the interim, but a few months ago i was going to invest in dublin resdiential property, now not so sure.
That does rather suggest that the proposed amendments are necessary and they are already having the desired effect.0 -
The inadequate demand to buy up appartments in appartment blocks at profitable prices is why developers are not building enough of them.
the market for 3 bed semi d's is entirely different. we need more appartment blocks instead of 3 bed semi d's
But Irish people don't like to live in apartments and developers haven't figured out the formula to build apartments that Irish people like to live in... & before people attack me for saying so, I know we need density of development. I'm just commenting... I keep hearing that 'they' need to build higher, denser, more... but I still don't know who 'they' are. If a developer doesn't want to build highrise apartments, he won't.
Apartments in Ireland are too small and developers do not want to build bigger apartments unless dragged kicking and screaming to do so by regulations. My apartment in another European city, one bedroom is 70sqm. Many Irish two beds are smaller than that. They aren't designed to be lived in.
On the substantive issue, Airbnb has siphoned supply from residential. This is clear. But the people who benefit financially from this do not want to acknowledge that. The part they will need to understand is increased housing supply such as they want, will, eventually, have to be on a scale that their capital values will be hit.0 -
Mod Note
Off topic posts deleted.0 -
LuckyLloyd wrote: »I note that at the end and I completely agree. Though I think it is important to combat the 'but shur only tourists want to be in the city centre' strawman sometimes carted out on this one.
Absolutely. Where did this idea come from that people don’t want to live in city centres? People might not be keen to live in Temple Bar but there are plenty of quieter city centres locations. I’d love to live in town.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mod Note
KevinCavan, lift the standard of your posts or stop posting.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement