Idiotic comparison. Short term lets by their nature are on the market a hundred times more frequently than long term ones.
Articles on dereliction and short term let’s are disengenious when not accompanied by the first principals of the housing crisis which is not caused by or can be solved with short term letting.
There were 88,419 dwellings built in 2006, output last year was increased by 10% on 2022 to reach 32,695
Immigration is off the charts since then too
And, it’s all the immigrants fault………
This again? Ok, once more for everyone in the back.
Properties are on short term let sites 100% of the time.
Properties are only on Daft when nobody is renting them.
But banning Air BnB won’t help 🙄
Look I can’t think of any situation but I am sure there are some edge cases why anyone would need more than 5 houses
If you own a 6th, the property tax is 50% of the market value of the house. Suddenly corporation and people won’t buy a 6th house.
Disingenuous
The headline is true, but the natural implication of the headline – that short term lets are a primary contributer to the housing crisis – is false.
It’s a good demonstration of a propaganda technique. The creator can’t be accused of lying yet they achieve the goal of lying – false beliefs which further their aims. I’m not saying this is propaganda though, which requires intent.
Housing is an emotive issue, with many people rationality goes out the f**kking window when discussing it. But the issue and the articles gets clicks and shares which is why media publications love spinning it.
It says in the article that the only houses they were considering were the ones from [daft.ie](http://daft.ie), whereas short-term rentals were taken from multiple sites. People rent out houses off of word of mouth or on different platforms other than daft. Their absence is going to skew the figures.
Many short-term letting websites are not properly maintained. Listings tend to up permanently which again skews the figures.
Short-term rentals are providing a necessary service. The government has taken it upon themselves to take thousands of hotel rooms out of circulation and convert entire hotels to IPAA centres. Tourists still need to stay somewhere or heaven forbid the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on seasonal tourism will go with them.
Then there is the problem of the overall premise of some the comments on here. That it is somehow the private landlords responsibility to fix a housing problem created by government and policy.
It’s not.
I understand why some people prefer handling short-term rentals to long-term housing. You are not stuck dealing with the RTB, if you get the wrong scumbag who turns into a squatter they can cost a person tens of thousands in lost rent, legal fees, property damage et cetera et cetera.
Imagine you were a property owner and you had a choice:
1. capped income from a potentially deadbeat tenant with essentially fixety of tenure
Or
2. An income that grows with market demand from multiple short term rentals with no tenant rights and who pay for their stay up front
Which would you pick?
Think about that when you look to limit landlords rights.
HOWEVER I dont want to advocate problems without suggesting solutions. So how about the government introduces a rental insurance scheme that would fully compensate landlords for loss of rent for tenants who stopped paying and until the government (through the courts and law enforcement) got the tenant out?
I’m sure this has been talked about….
But has there been any vote on a “Cap” for how much can be charged for short term Lets?
It should be worked out as a percentage of the Mortgage or something……?
I am not sure…..but it can’t go on without changing
There is only one organisation in the country that prevents people from building their own houses…
Just make it illegal to own more than one property. If you want an income then go out and get a fucking job and earn it like the rest of us. There would obviously be an initial shock to house prices as tens or hundreds of thousands of properties become available to buy at affordable prices. But then after they are bought up by the people that couldn’t afford then the prices would go back up to a more “normal” value for everyone.
Perhaps mum and dad investors or accidental landlords are intimidated by a perceived aggressive RTB system that appears to favour renters rights over owners rights.
Now before you all go mental I’m not a landlord and I was a renter for decades. I’m not arguing about the merits or thereof the system to protect renters I’m just sitting that there might be unintended consequences of an overly assertive tenants rights system that puts people off renting their properties longer term. People may be afraid of losing control of their houses. Particularly if they get a difficult tenant in situ.
Rights should be accompanied by responsibilities. Perhaps there is a place for a registrar of both vexatious landlords and tenants to encourage people to act in good faith. This might encourage people to rent their properties. It might free up some of the Fair Deal properties locked up in bureaucracy.
Again? Like how many times people will.throw this clickbait…
15 comments
Idiotic comparison. Short term lets by their nature are on the market a hundred times more frequently than long term ones.
Articles on dereliction and short term let’s are disengenious when not accompanied by the first principals of the housing crisis which is not caused by or can be solved with short term letting.
There were 88,419 dwellings built in 2006, output last year was increased by 10% on 2022 to reach 32,695
Immigration is off the charts since then too
And, it’s all the immigrants fault………
This again? Ok, once more for everyone in the back.
Properties are on short term let sites 100% of the time.
Properties are only on Daft when nobody is renting them.
But banning Air BnB won’t help 🙄
Look I can’t think of any situation but I am sure there are some edge cases why anyone would need more than 5 houses
If you own a 6th, the property tax is 50% of the market value of the house. Suddenly corporation and people won’t buy a 6th house.
Disingenuous
The headline is true, but the natural implication of the headline – that short term lets are a primary contributer to the housing crisis – is false.
It’s a good demonstration of a propaganda technique. The creator can’t be accused of lying yet they achieve the goal of lying – false beliefs which further their aims. I’m not saying this is propaganda though, which requires intent.
Housing is an emotive issue, with many people rationality goes out the f**kking window when discussing it. But the issue and the articles gets clicks and shares which is why media publications love spinning it.
It says in the article that the only houses they were considering were the ones from [daft.ie](http://daft.ie), whereas short-term rentals were taken from multiple sites. People rent out houses off of word of mouth or on different platforms other than daft. Their absence is going to skew the figures.
Many short-term letting websites are not properly maintained. Listings tend to up permanently which again skews the figures.
Short-term rentals are providing a necessary service. The government has taken it upon themselves to take thousands of hotel rooms out of circulation and convert entire hotels to IPAA centres. Tourists still need to stay somewhere or heaven forbid the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on seasonal tourism will go with them.
Then there is the problem of the overall premise of some the comments on here. That it is somehow the private landlords responsibility to fix a housing problem created by government and policy.
It’s not.
I understand why some people prefer handling short-term rentals to long-term housing. You are not stuck dealing with the RTB, if you get the wrong scumbag who turns into a squatter they can cost a person tens of thousands in lost rent, legal fees, property damage et cetera et cetera.
Imagine you were a property owner and you had a choice:
1. capped income from a potentially deadbeat tenant with essentially fixety of tenure
Or
2. An income that grows with market demand from multiple short term rentals with no tenant rights and who pay for their stay up front
Which would you pick?
Think about that when you look to limit landlords rights.
HOWEVER I dont want to advocate problems without suggesting solutions. So how about the government introduces a rental insurance scheme that would fully compensate landlords for loss of rent for tenants who stopped paying and until the government (through the courts and law enforcement) got the tenant out?
I’m sure this has been talked about….
But has there been any vote on a “Cap” for how much can be charged for short term Lets?
It should be worked out as a percentage of the Mortgage or something……?
I am not sure…..but it can’t go on without changing
There is only one organisation in the country that prevents people from building their own houses…
Just make it illegal to own more than one property. If you want an income then go out and get a fucking job and earn it like the rest of us. There would obviously be an initial shock to house prices as tens or hundreds of thousands of properties become available to buy at affordable prices. But then after they are bought up by the people that couldn’t afford then the prices would go back up to a more “normal” value for everyone.
Perhaps mum and dad investors or accidental landlords are intimidated by a perceived aggressive RTB system that appears to favour renters rights over owners rights.
Now before you all go mental I’m not a landlord and I was a renter for decades. I’m not arguing about the merits or thereof the system to protect renters I’m just sitting that there might be unintended consequences of an overly assertive tenants rights system that puts people off renting their properties longer term. People may be afraid of losing control of their houses. Particularly if they get a difficult tenant in situ.
Rights should be accompanied by responsibilities. Perhaps there is a place for a registrar of both vexatious landlords and tenants to encourage people to act in good faith. This might encourage people to rent their properties. It might free up some of the Fair Deal properties locked up in bureaucracy.
Again? Like how many times people will.throw this clickbait…
Comments are closed.