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

Berlin's government legislates against Airbnb

Options
«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    mirrorwall14
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,751 ✭✭✭mirrorwall14


    Now that's interesting. wonder will we see other cities start to follow suit


  • Options
    #3
    yqtwqxqm
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭yqtwqxqm


    I use it myself.
    Great service, and a whole lot less hassle than I would have to go through if I rented my apartments to tenants nowadays.
    The way that the government want to control MY investment and take all control away from me has made sure that I will never let them again as long as the current hassles stay.

    If they prevent me doing AirBnb too, i'll just sell up and buy an apartment somewhere sunny and let that on AirBnb. And use it whenever I want for myself for holidays too.

    In Berlin its a little different to here. That ban I think applies to government subsidised housing only. I may be wrong.


  • Options
    #4
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    mirrorwall14 wrote: »
    Now that's interesting. wonder will we see other cities start to follow suit
    maybe easier than you'd think to implement.

    The Berlin move really isn't a new construct but is simply enforcing the planning rules that residential zoned property has to be residential (for residents of the city) and not used as leisure accommodation for tourists.
    Ireland could EASILY do the same if there was the will. For gods sake, if the authorities can interpret the planning laws to require planning permission to have a concert in a sports stadium, then they can just as easy (albeit on a bigger scale) interpret the use of accommodation as tourist lodgings being an unauthorised change of use

    Munich and New York are also enforcing the unauthorised change of use laws, but not as thoroughly as in Berlin.


  • Options
    #5
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    munchkin_utd wrote: »
    The Berlin move really isn't a new construct but is simply enforcing the planning rules that residential zoned property has to be residential (for residents of the city) and not used as leisure accommodation for tourists.
    Ireland could EASILY do the same if there was the will. For gods sake, if the authorities can interpret the planning laws to require planning permission to have a concert in a sports stadium, then they can just as easy (albeit on a bigger scale) interpret the use of accommodation as tourist lodgings being an unauthorised change of use

    I understand the regulation is already in place for this to happen in Ireland. No need for interpretation, just enforcement.

    I'd like to see something similar to the Berlin approach. Maybe even a step further, provision of entire apartments/houses restricted to such properties that have planning permission for short-term holiday lets, provision of individual rooms limited to rooms in a principle private residence and subject to a maximum number of room nights per year otherwise planning required.


  • Options
    #6
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    The clue is in the name of the company - Airbnb. The properties rented are supposed to be guesthouse-style where the guest takes a room and the owner provides them with breakfast and chat.

    Renting out full properties as holiday homes is a bastardisation of the original concept, but Airbnb have been happy to let it develop so long as it makes them money.

    As munchkin_utd says above, these is really just a reinforcement of existing rules that are in place for renting out properties, and similarly would be in place in Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    OSI wrote: »
    What are peoples objection to AirBnB exactly? I've seen a lot of negative comment about it, but those comments never seem to come from those at either end of the AirBnB supply chain, just outsiders

    I don't have a problem with AirBnB specifically, I do have a problem with the unofficial re-distribution of housing stock as short-term holiday accommodation to the point where its starting to distort an already under pressure housing supply. I also take issue with the potential for buying a house/apartment to live in, only to discover the neighbouring property is permanently occupied with holidaymakers who have an entirely different use-case for the accommodation which often isn't compatible with long-term housing.

    Of course the people buying/selling aren't going to have an issue with the business model. Its ability to sidestep the regulations and benefit from the cost-saving of doing so are in the interests of both parties.


  • Options
    #8
    yqtwqxqm
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭yqtwqxqm


    OSI wrote: »
    What are peoples objection to AirBnB exactly? I've seen a lot of negative comment about it, but those comments never seem to come from those at either end of the AirBnB supply chain, just outsiders

    I think its fantastic. I use it both as a host and as a guest.
    As a host it allows me more control over my asset. (No PRTB, Rent control) and all the rest of the hassles introduced by various legislation).
    Its also extremely easy to see how good or bad a person is before you commit. No hassles ever getting the money either.
    See the government here think that my property belongs to THEM and THEY can make me use it as they see fit. I object to that, so strongly that I would sell up rather than let them control it.

    As a guest I find it much cheaper than using hotels.
    In fact I would be put off going to Berlin now because I would much rather use Airbnb than expensive hotels, and if I cant, i'll just pick somewhere else to go where I can use it.


  • Options
    #9
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    Graham wrote: »
    I also take issue with the potential for buying a house/apartment to live in, only to discover the neighbouring property is permanently occupied with holidaymakers who have an entirely different use-case for the accommodation which often isn't compatible with long-term housing.

    This is also my concern. A person buys or rents a home in a residential area on the understanding they will be sharing space, facilities, and security with other residents. A short-term guest/holidaymaker is not a resident.

    Holidaymakers do not have the same requirements and preferences as long-term residents, and, to generalise, don't have the same restrictions or feel bound by the same social mores, either. People behave differently on holiday because they won't have to face the same level of consequences, socially, as they would if they were staying there long-term.

    Of course you can get stuck living beside the neighbourhood plank who's been there for fifty years and thinks he owns the street as well as his house, or bad tenants can move into the flat beside yours, but on the balance of it you are more likely to have problems with short-term neighbours because of
    a) the differences between holiday behaviour and long-term resident behaviour, and
    b) the simple mathematics of getting new people every few days as opposed to every few months or years, which increases your chances of seeing a bad egg.

    Personally, I would be very much in favour of seeing the short-term rental loophole closed, especially for multi-home buildings such as apartment blocks. If you want to rent out your 50-miles-to-the-nearest-town cottage on a daily basis, that's entirely your business, but when you're putting ten drunk holidaymakers into a one-bedroom apartment surrounded by other people who have to get up for work tomorrow, you're creating a problem for others which cannot be allowed to continue.


  • Options
    #10
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Graham wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with AirBnB specifically, I do have a problem with the unofficial re-distribution of housing stock as short-term holiday accommodation to the point where its starting to distort an already under pressure housing supply.
    This.

    For example, at the moment there is a 3-bed house in Blackrock up on Airbnb.

    According to Daft, the average rental price of a 3-bed in Blackrock is €2,100 a month.

    The one on Airbnb is up at €300 a night. So all they have to do is rent it out seven nights in a given month, and they're quids in.

    In fact they're more than quids in because they're making €2,100 for 25% occupancy, versus the same amount for 100% occupancy if it's rented out. This is why they do it.

    With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.


  • Options
    #11
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    yqtwqxqm wrote: »
    See the government here think that my property belongs to THEM and THEY can make me use it as they see fit. I object to that, so strongly that I would sell up rather than let them control it.

    Ultimately I think that would be no bad thing. Multiply that by 1000 and you start to reduce pressure on the housing stock as property is returned to the use for which planning permission was granted. This would start to reduce pressure on property prices and rental prices in an already supply constrained market.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    yqtwqxqm
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭yqtwqxqm


    Graham wrote: »
    Ultimately I think that would be no bad thing. Multiply that by 1000 and you start to reduce pressure on the housing stock as property is returned to the use for which planning permission was granted. This would start to reduce pressure on property prices and rental prices in an already supply constrained market.


    Well it seems to be happening right now, so you might get your wish.
    I think it might very well lead to cheaper property prices, but far fewer rental units.
    Take my situation. I currently have two rental units almost totally booked up until December. All of these people are from other countries. They are renting my units because they are €70 per night 1 bed units. They have washing machines, Kitchens, TVs etc. Some are couples on their own and some are couples with children. Some are other hosts who I have agreed can have the apartments for free in return for a free stay at theirs for me whenever i want to go on holiday there. All with glowing references.
    And all renting from me purely because hotels and BnBs in Ireland have become far too expensive.
    Most of these people would not be coming to Ireland to spend their money if the only choice they had was hotels and BnBs here. They would be going to another country and using AirBnB or a country with cheaper hotels etc.

    For my side, I get easy to vet guests, payment made very easy and most of all I get people who have earned a reputation and are interested in keeping that reputation, so they treat my property extremely well compared to your average tenant, which allows me to equip the units to an excellent standard and be safe in the knowledge it will be respected.

    The alternative is the minefield that is trying to select a good tenant and then have your hands tied by the government regarding how much you can charge or what you can do about it if things go wrong.


  • Options
    #13
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    yqtwqxqm wrote: »
    Well it seems to be happening right now, so you might get your wish.
    I think it might very well lead to cheaper property prices, but far fewer rental units.
    Take my situation. I currently have two rental units almost totally booked up until December.

    I'm not sure it would result in far fewer rental units. You've already stated you have removed 2 units from the rental market and repurposed them as short-term holiday accommodation.

    Should you decide to sell because of restrictions on such lettings, both units will be returned to the market as either owner occupied units or long-term rental accommodation. Either result is likely to reduce pressure on the current long-term rental stock.


  • Options
    #14
    yqtwqxqm
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭yqtwqxqm


    Graham wrote: »
    I'm not sure it would result in far fewer rental units. You've already stated you have removed 2 units from the rental market and repurposed them as short-term holiday accommodation.

    Should you decide to sell because of restrictions on such lettings, both units will be returned to the market as either owner occupied units or long-term rental accommodation. Either result is likely to reduce pressure on the current long-term rental stock.

    Mine are an annex that has been split in two by the previous owner.
    If I decided to sell it I would make it into a family home quiet easily by removing a stud wall and a kitchen. I couldnt sell it as two units.
    And it would be worth more as a family home anyway.

    But thats just my case.

    I think at the moment more owner occupiers than investors are buying and more investors are selling up than owner occupiers.
    If that continues rentals will become scarcer.


  • Options
    #15
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    yqtwqxqm wrote: »
    Mine are an annex that has been split in two by the previous owner.
    If I decided to sell it I would make it into a family home quiet easily by removing a stud wall and a kitchen. I couldnt sell it as two units.
    And it would be worth more as a family home anyway.

    But thats just my case.

    I think at the moment more owner occupiers than investors are buying and more investors are selling up than owner occupiers.
    If that continues rentals will become scarcer.

    Sounds like you are an edge case, that certainly wouldn't be the usual AirBnB type arrangement.

    I'd be interested in seeing the stats for investors selling up. Even if that is the case, more owner-occupiers at the lower end of the market (the typical AirBnB apartment rentals) will reduce demand on the remaining rental stock as people move from renting to buying.


  • Options
    #16
    yqtwqxqm
    Registered Users Posts: 422 ✭✭yqtwqxqm


    Graham wrote: »
    Sounds like you are an edge case, that certainly wouldn't be the usual AirBnB type arrangement.

    I'd be interested in seeing the stats for investors selling up. Even if that is the case, more owner-occupiers at the lower end of the market (the typical AirBnB apartment rentals) will reduce demand on the remaining rental stock as people move from renting to buying.

    There are stats somewhere that ive seen. There was a link in a thread here.

    The problem in IOreland with property is that the government are constantly interfering with the market. They just cant help themselves, and they hurt the market every single time, without exception when they do this.


  • Options
    #17
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Graham wrote: »
    yqtwqxqm wrote: »
    See the government here think that my property belongs to THEM and THEY can make me use it as they see fit. I object to that, so strongly that I would sell up rather than let them control it.

    Ultimately I think that would be no bad thing. Multiply that by 1000 and you start to reduce pressure on the housing stock as property is returned to the use for which planning permission was granted. This would start to reduce pressure on property prices and rental prices in an already supply constrained market.
    Selling of AirBnB or any rental stock to people want to buy their own home would probably actually drive up rent prices as it would reduce the available rental supply.


  • Options
    #18
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    robp wrote: »
    Selling of AirBnB or any rental stock to people want to buy their own home would probably actually drive up rent prices as it would reduce the valuable rental supply.

    I can't understand how sales of current AirBnB properties would have a negative impact on the rental supply? Short-term rentals are as much use to the long-term rental market as hotel rooms (i.e., none).

    Either an investor buys it (adding another rental property to the market) or an owner-occupier buys it (removing a renter from the market, or vacating their previously owned property and thus making another house available for sale).

    Surely this would only decrease demand and increase supply in the rental market, something which seems to be badly needed?


  • Options
    #19
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    robp wrote: »
    Selling of AirBnB or any rental stock to people want to buy their own home would probably actually drive up rent prices as it would reduce the available rental supply.

    If the property is already an AirBnB, it has already been removed from the rental supply.

    Returning such a property to the owner-occupier market would more than likely remove the new owner-occupiers from the property they rent. Net result is +1 unit for the long-term market.


  • Options
    #20
    DavyD_83
    Registered Users Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭DavyD_83


    seamus wrote: »
    The clue is in the name of the company - Airbnb. The properties rented are supposed to be guesthouse-style where the guest takes a room and the owner provides them with breakfast and chat.

    Renting out full properties as holiday homes is a bastardisation of the original concept, but Airbnb have been happy to let it develop so long as it makes them money.

    As munchkin_utd says above, these is really just a reinforcement of existing rules that are in place for renting out properties, and similarly would be in place in Dublin.

    I've been using Airbnb as a guest since it started up.
    At the beginning it seemed to be aimed at renting spare rooms, but also for people to be able to rent their primary property while they are not using it. eg. when they themselves are on holidays or for people who live in city Mon-Friday for work and then go home at weekends.
    The room/bed rental was pitched as a community type setup, sort of a couch-surfing with payment type of thing.
    I agree with limiting the amount of places which would be essentially taken out of the rental market by these services, but would like to see some allowance for rental of full primary properties for certain number of days a year (although I know this would be incredibly difficult to police)


  • Options
    #21
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    yqtwqxqm wrote: »
    There are stats somewhere that ive seen. There was a link in a thread here.

    The problem in IOreland with property is that the government are constantly interfering with the market. They just cant help themselves, and they hurt the market every single time, without exception when they do this.

    I agree that governments shouldn't generally interfere with markets.

    In this instance, I'm not sure the government should shoulder too much of the blame. Landlords alone decided to repurpose rental accommodation as short-term holiday lettings, unilaterally removing property from one market and placing it in another.

    I can't say I blame the landlords either. Who wouldn't be tempted by the relatively rich pickings of the holiday market. At the same time any landlord would have to be fairly naive to think this will be permitted indefinitely.

    Government/local authorities should now begin to enforce the planning legislation that has always been in place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    OSI wrote: »
    What are peoples objection to AirBnB exactly? I've seen a lot of negative comment about it, but those comments never seem to come from those at either end of the AirBnB supply chain, just outsiders

    There are 2 problems. The first from the Tourist side. They are taking business from registered and regulated Bed and Breakfast Business'.

    The second is from a rental/housing crisis perspective, as outlined above by Seamus.
    "For example, at the moment there is a 3-bed house in Blackrock up on Airbnb.
    According to Daft, the average rental price of a 3-bed in Blackrock is €2,100 a month.
    The one on Airbnb is up at €300 a night. So all they have to do is rent it out seven nights in a given month, and they're quids in.
    In fact they're more than quids in because they're making €2,100 for 25% occupancy, versus the same amount for 100% occupancy if it's rented out. This is why they do it.
    With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused."

    There is another in that some on Welfare payments are supplementing their income by renting rooms to AirBnB, but I don't want to go down the Welfare bashing route!


  • Options
    #23
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I've been using Airbnb as a guest since it started up.
    At the beginning it seemed to be aimed at renting spare rooms, but also for people to be able to rent their primary property while they are not using it. eg. when they themselves are on holidays or for people who live in city Mon-Friday for work and then go home at weekends.
    The room/bed rental was pitched as a community type setup, sort of a couch-surfing with payment type of thing.
    I agree with limiting the amount of places which would be essentially taken out of the rental market by these services, but would like to see some allowance for rental of full primary properties for certain number of days a year (although I know this would be incredibly difficult to police)

    That sounds like a really sensible approach DavyD, renting spare capacity in your home or renting your home while you're away for a couple of weeks gets back to the original 'sharing economy' premise of AirBnB.


  • Options
    #24
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    seamus wrote: »

    With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.

    Isnt this the crux of the problem? Who should be providing housing stock? LA/Governments or private developers?

    If its LA/Governments it is their right to use the stock as they please. If its private developers who sell to private individuals (be it owners or landlords) its up to them to use it as they see fit with in the scope of the planning conditions.

    This is taken from Kildare's website

    Provided not more than 4 bedrooms are used for guest accommodation and provided that there are not more than 4 persons per room, you do not need planning permission. In this case, the word “house” does not include a building designated for use or used as 2 or more dwellings, or a flat, or apartment.

    For me the housing crisis is a problem the government needs to solve and not to be religion on private stock. If it wants to rely on private stock then let the market decide what is fair. The flip side is government interference which has worked out great so far.


  • Options
    #25
    Sky King
    Registered Users Posts: 4,431 ✭✭✭Sky King


    seamus wrote: »
    With the housing crisis we're already in, local authorities need to crack down on this stuff and ensure that residential housing stock isn't being misused.

    What about the people who own the 'residential housing stock'? Don't they get to decide what to do with their own houses?


  • Options
    #26
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    godtabh wrote: »
    Isnt this the crux of the problem? Who should be providing housing stock? LA/Governments or private developers?

    If its LA/Governments it is their right to use the stock as they please. If its private developers who sell to private individuals (be it owners or landlords) its up to them to use it as they see fit with in the scope of the planning conditions.

    This is taken from Kildare's website



    For me the housing crisis is a problem the government needs to solve and not to be religion on private stock. If it wants to rely on private stock then let the market decide what is fair. The flip side is government interference which has worked out great so far.

    The word 'guest' would suggest there is an expectation of an owner-occupier being present. If that the case there would be no loss of housing stock and no distortion of the housing market.


  • Options
    #27
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Sky King wrote: »
    What about the people who own the 'residential housing stock'? Don't they get to decide what to do with their own houses?

    Of course they do, within the limitations of the planning granted to the residential housing stock.


  • Options
    #28
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users Posts: 7,882 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    Graham wrote: »
    That sounds like a really sensible approach DavyD, renting spare capacity in your home or renting your home while you're away for a couple of weeks gets back to the original 'sharing economy' premise of AirBnB.
    just to re-state it, this type of activity is 100% ok in Berlin still.
    Theres a difference in having (paying) guests the odd time with removing a residental property completely from the long term rental market.

    Individually a small time landlord feels he is doing little harm, but multiply that by 20,000 units like in Berlin, and assume that 2 or 3 can fit in a property on average, then literally 10s of thousands of current or potential Berlin residents and potential tax payers are denied a roof over their heads.

    Dublin wouldnt be as bad, but you still could have 10s of thousands of people being denied an apartment or house because a landlord unilaterally decides that he wants to be in the tourist rather than residential rental business.


  • Options
    #29
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,218 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    Graham wrote: »
    The word 'guest' would suggest there is an expectation of an owner-occupier being present. If that the case there would be no loss of housing stock and no distortion of the housing market.

    Then there is the difference between owner occupier and renter.


    Some one can rent a room through daft or AirBnB. Some people take this a step further and rent through AirBnB. As long as they pay their fair share I've no issue.

    As Seamus pointed out rent through AirBnB has the potential for a much bigger return to the individual and the government. Maybe the higher return should be put back into LA housing stock.


  • Options
    #30
    Charles Babbage
    Registered Users Posts: 5,695 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    This is not a simple matter as it just creates a shortage of short term accommodation when the government is trying to promote tourism etc and over enthusiastic measures will prevent people renting out properties short term and so reduce the supply further. And there are different situations, if some landlord has students until the end of this month, gives the place a good clean and has it on Airbnb for 3 months is this a problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Charles Babbage wrote: »
    This is not a simple matter as it just creates a shortage of short term accommodation when the government is trying to promote tourism etc and over enthusiastic measures will prevent people renting out properties short term and so reduce the supply further. And there are different situations, if some landlord has students until the end of this month, gives the place a good clean and has it on Airbnb for 3 months is this a problem?

    Shortages in short-term holiday accommodation should not be addressed by skirting around planning laws to repurpose long-term rental accommodation at the expense of long-term residents of a city/town.

    Academic year student accommodation is a different case, many halls of residence have been let over the summer months for some years now.


Advertisement