Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WHILE LAS VEGAS might be a slightly better destination to head to if you’re planning a party — Dublin leaves the likes of New York and Rio de Janiero in the shade, at least, according to one metric.
The capital’s been named at number six in a list of best value party cities for Eurozone travellers, according to research from accommodation website Hotels.com.
The site’s Hotel Price Index measures prices paid per hotel room rather than advertised rates.
At an average of €88 per room per night, Dublin’s just ahead of Barcelona in seventh place — followed at the lower end of the table by London, New York and Rio.
Bangkok tops the list — with the rest of the top five comprised of Madrid, Vegas, Buenos Aires and Berlin.
Speaking earlier this week, Tourism Minister Leo Varadkar said he hoped to grow the number of tourists heading to Ireland by 4 per cent by the end of the year.
The current focus of the Government is on growing visitors from developing markets, the Minister said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This is all noise to distract from the real problem…. lack of council built houses.
@eric nelligan: ah so that’s the only reason is it?? It has nothing to do with people breaking planing laws by setting up businesses in buildings built to house people either through long term rental or by purchasing there own property’s to raise their own families in,, if you want to open up a place to the paying public you need to apply for permission to do so, or else buy a property in a commercial zone, why should other businesses have to comply by rules yet some people think that AirB&B shouldn’t have to comply with the same rules that protect other people’s homes from a multitude of problems that can arise if you suddenly find yourself living next door to someone’s business that wasn’t there when you purchased your own property?
@Devilsavocado: shouldn’t those rules be in place before the property is purchased though? Otherwise it’s like changing the rules of the game half way through. It’s little wonder that the property sector is failing to attract serious investors with all the chopping and changing.
@Devilsavocado: BnBs have been around for a long time, AirBNB is relatively new but its not a new concept. BnBs have offered a convenient and low cost accommodation alternative for decades and have operated out of people’s homes, so lets not lose sight of the convenience that enables and the tourist revenue it creates. That is true now of AirBnbs as much as BnBs of old.
Another load of unenforceable blue shirt dilly dally nonsense.
@Milk The Drones:
Absolutely not unenforceable.
Airbnb have agreed to provide Revenue with a list of every landlord who uses their system and the revenue generated via the platform.
Would be very easy for Revenue to request that info be broken down by property.
So Revenue would know whether that property was PPR or second/third home.
Cross reference that with a list of those who have applied for change of use.
Issue €5k fines to those who haven’t.
Where do I collect my €750k fee from DCC for this?
More nonsense , the number of properties that Airbnb takes out of the market is negligible, the problem is FG and their steadfast refusal to build social housing, looking after the lads yet again
@Liam Carlin:
It’ll be great if the government build social housing. It will take the tens of thousands of unemployed carpenters, electricians and plumbers off the dole and give them much needed work. And if there is are not enough of them on the dole, they can pay to bring back all the poorly paid carpenters, electricians and plumbers from Australia. They have miserable lives over there I have heard. Unfortunately we would probably have to build houses for them to live in first, so we might have to plan that out a bit
The other great thing is that if the government have to build all those free, sorry, social houses they won’t have any money left to squander on health and education. Of course the people who get to live in the free, sorry, social houses won’t have to worry about maintaining them either, because the councils or corporation will look after all that.
I, like most other tax payers, look forward to funding this fantastic venture.
Vote no 1 Liam Carlin.
@Liam Carlin: When was the last time you were looking for rented accommodation to live in and what was your budget?
@CrabaRev: so what you’re saying is maintain the status quo ? Record homeless numbers , many tens of thousands who aren’t homeless but are being screwed with insane rents and are one or two months pay away from homelessness. I am one of those tax payers you mentioned and I am in favor of social housing. Also it doesn’t need to be free either, local authorities could set rents at a market rate , also if you’re so upset at the thought of taxpayers money being spent on such projects think about the vast sums already being spent in HAP in the private rental sector
@Steve O’Connor: today in fact and my budget depends on the property , what is the point of your question ?
@Liam Carlin:
Social housing is definitely not the way to go. Paying HAP is a much better use of taxpayers funds. It is a pay per use model. When the tenant can look after themselves, the government funding ends.
The Government doesn’t fork out hundreds of thousands per unit and have very costly maintenance of units that eventually get sold to the owner at an enormous knock down price.
Social Housing creates a mentality in society of “the government owe me a house”, which is very unhealthy for any society. It also creates a class divide, which nobody wants.
Apart from any of that, we have a supply problem. Not enough supply of houses, the Government couldn’t build social housing at the minute even if they wanted to.
@CrabaRev: hap is a black hole money pit which really only serves to bolster the private rental sector which also is not meeting the demands of the housing sector
@Liam Carlin:
Rubbish. Social housing is a money pit. They costing a fortune to build and maintain and creating social lifers that cost the state billions for generations.
HAP is by far the best way to support people who can’t support their housing needs. I know a couple of young people on HAP and they wouldn’t in a million years want to be stuck in social housing.
I remember council houses, and council estates. Even in small towns and villages they were ghettos. People in council estates were looked down on and it just bred the social lifer, the “why should I bother I can get a house for nothing” brigade.
The solutions for the housing crises are very complex, we have to balance current need with future needs and make sure we have affordable stock. Also you just can’t magic up houses. We need engineers, builders, carpenters,etc. According to IBEC we are short 60,000 construction personnel to meet the current demand. If we could get them, where will we house them? There is no simple solution.
@CrabaRev: not if social housing is done properly does it need to become a ghetto or deprived area.
Look at how it is done in austria or the netherlands where people from all social stratas use social houses at rent that is suitable to thier income.
It is a far more suitable way to provide good homes in the right areas than squeezing in as many units as possibleto sell for maxmum profit. This does not serve the people.
The government are shovelling homeless people into BnBs and hotels, they aren’t building enough homes or types of homes for people, the minister of housing thinks people should be excited about the prospect of paying to live in a prison wing. All of these things and they go after people who want to rent out their property to tourists. I am all for putting societies’ needs first but not when the government aren’t doing the things they should be doing
@Charles McGuire: Agreed! Of all the things they could be doing or going after, this is what they focus on? I’ve stayed in many AirBNBs and they provide a valuable service and enable a lot of tourist revenue. They should be regulated and the Govt should get its cut as it does with other forms of accomm, but regulating them out of the picture is less than intelligent.
Whos going to enforce this
@Louise Ryan: The government…
Registration “Tax”, Penalties “Tax” no more, no less.
Hi Guys,
I’m not from Ireland, so if this is silly I’m sorry in advance. People get a bit cautious when somebody talks about more social housing, and this is totally understandable. If I’m not wrong, those houses are built and maintained by the government and very central places become stale/wasted. This brings nothing to anyone, except certain people who are living in those places. As far as I see nobody is happy as billions of euros are tied to those places.
My curiosity is, what if government goes to partnership with private sector, building houses together and selling those houses to people who doesn’t have a house and who have income below certain level? There might be even some sweepstake about who’s going to get which place among the applicants. The houses don’t need to be posh or high quality. Those people cannot sell those houses for 10+ years, those people “will pay” for those houses. Those people will decrease the demand on house market. As they will also pay for it, government won’t struggle with the expenses as much as she does for social housing.
I’m aware of countries doing that and they have succeeded supporting people owning their own places. I hope I’m missing something here because this solution seems to be so obvious to me and I’m hoping to be wrong somewhere.
Thank you.
@Gökhan Güneş: Makes a lot of sense. Unsure why its not happening.
Another way that the government has managed to take away a little bit of extra that people were able to earn to get them or their kids ahead or out of debt. They hate the idea of the small man bring able to better himself. Where was the government 10 years ago when rents collapsed? Landlords had to sell at negative equity as they couldn’t get tenants. That’s why housing stock is so low
Does this only apply to rent pressure zones?
@Jason Doyle McCormack:
As I understand it applies to all Airbnbs but you have little chance of getting Planning permission to run a Airbnb in a RPZ.
@Jason Doyle McCormack: that’s my question, too. It’s not clear at all to be honest?! Ridiculous situation that people aren’t allowed to do with their own property what they like!! Government should try doing their job and stop looking for a scapegoat!
@Gerkygirl:
Under these new laws, home-sharing on platforms such as Airbnb will, in effect, only be allowed where a house is a person’s primary residence inside designated ‘rent pressure zones’.
In 2016 a small apartment management company from Killarney won its case in the High Court which prohibited an apartment owner from using an apartment in the building for reguluar-short term AirBnB accommodation.This set a legal precedent until now.
Lol….
have your say