Not in our block: Airbnb shock in Sydney city survey | Another day in paradise | Flat Chat Forum: Your Questions Answered




A A A

You must be registered and logged in to reply to posts or post new topics. Click on "How to Use This Forum" for simple instructions on how to get on board. NB: Please do not use your real name or email address as your screen name - if you do it will be changed to something less insecure.

Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Not in our block: Airbnb shock in Sydney city survey
sp_BlogLinkWhite Read the original blog post
Avatar
JimmyT
Admin
Forum Posts: 4641
Member Since:
06/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
03/09/2017 - 7:00 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

It’s not exactly a U-turn but City of Sydney seem likely to make a significant shift in their thinking about short-term holiday letting in apartment buildings.

And it’s all because they have taken the radical step of asking apartment owners and residents (including tenants) what they think.

It's safe to say the results are not going to please Airbnb.  Most of us, it seems, support the idea of apartment residents being able to let a room to a Swedish backpacker while the tenant or owner is there to make sure they behave themselves.

However, most of us also object to apartment blocks, particularly the well-run ones, being exploited by people who don’t give a crap about our lives and just want to take advantage of our hard work to line their pockets by running commercial holiday lets to people they never meet.

Go figure!

There are really very few surprises in the CoS survey, summarised below and available for download here.  Older apartment owners are less likely to support commercial holiday lets, younger tenants are more likely to give them the thumbs up.

The vast majority of respondents are not that concerned about people letting rooms in their flats when they are there – or even letting the whole unit once or twice a year when they are on holiday (what we call the family, friends and cat-sitter option).

But respondents were evenly split about whether or not owners should be allowed to pass by-laws banning short-term letting.  However, it's fair to say that this was skewed towards renters while owners-occupiers and investors arguably have more "skin" in this game, as their apartment represent a major investment of time and money as well as being their homes.

Also, renters are naturally averse to their owner neighbours being able to create their own rules that affect their lives.

In fact 24 and 23 percent of owner-occupiers and investors respectively listed short-term letting as a concern while only 10 per cent of tenants ticked that box. Resident owners listed short-term letting right up with building defects and maintenance as their major concern (the latter they shared with tenants).  Investors' biggest worry by far was parking.

In the City of Sydney's own words,  the independent survey of strata owners, occupiers and investors shows most respondents support short-term letting of a residents’ own home, but oppose short-term letting as a full-time commercial operation.

Woolcott Research and Engagement interviewed 1,001 people including apartment tenants, owner-occupiers and investors including apartment tenants (56%), owner-occupiers (38%) and investors (8%). (See Post #3, below, for an explanation of these figures)

The survey found:

  • 54% supported short-term letting while the resident remains on the property (for example, letting a spare bedroom) – 22% opposed
  • 53% supported short-term letting when the resident is on holidays – 26% opposed
  • 64% supported strata committees having more power to manage impacts such as anti-social behaviour – but were evenly split on whether strata committees should be able to ban short-term letting in their building
  • Other issues such as building defects, maintenance and parking were of more concern to respondents than short-term letting

The results suggested significant differences between the views of younger and older residents.

  • 80% aged under 35 supported short-term letting while the resident lives in the property or is on holiday, while 60% supported short-term letting as a full-time investment
  • 50% aged over 55 supported short-term letting while the resident lives in the property, 40% while the resident is on holiday and 20% as a full-time investment
  • Two-thirds over 55 agreed strata committees should have the authority to ban short-term letting in their building, compared to one-third under-35.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore said the City would make a submission in response to the NSW Government’s recent Options Paper, and was seeking input from the community through the Sydney Your Say website: sydneyyoursay.com.au/short-term-letting

“This research is part of our work to understand the positive and negative impacts of short term letting, and to guide our submission on the NSW Government’s options paper,” the Lord Mayor said.

“We’ll be backing this independent research with work to gauge the community’s preferences when it comes to short term letting platforms like Airbnb and Stayz.

“With more than 70 per cent of our residents living in apartment buildings, we will continue to consult with residents, owners and investors to understand and represent their views.”

This is a considerable challenge to CoS’s previously held opinion, as expressed in their submission to the shelved Coure report into NSW holiday letting legislation issued last year, that residential only zoning should be dumped in favour of “complying developments” –  i.e. no controls – for units let for an unspecified number of nights a year (but probably 100, or, as the more cynical among us call it, every weekend).

Be assured that as you read this, Airbnb will be ramping up their battalions of poor, struggling single parents and retirees with debilitating illnesses who would all be homeless and starve to death if they couldn’t rent a room in their homes, to support their campaign to force the rest of us to put up with commercial holiday lets in our apartment blocks.

The "astroturf" campaign to make us believe that all these "independent" Airbnb hosts represent a grassroots movement will be in full swing.

They are incredibly well organised. One of the people interviewed for the Sun-Herald story, immediately reported back to Airbnb who then asked the reporter to contact them so they could provide more “case studies”. But, considering this is a $50 billion business masquerading as a community service, we shouldn’t be surprised.

We would really love it if the commentators and politicians who are fed the Airbnb "alternative facts" over the next few weeks would ask them this simple question:

If as you say, you are all about people letting a room in their homes, and if, as you say, the commercial letting of whole homes is a miniscule part of your business, why don’t you leave us in peace in our apartments and we will support you in your oft-stated aims to allow genuine home sharing.

And please don’t spin the line about “defending people’s rights to do as they want with their homes.” That doesn’t apply in strata – not here and not anywhere else where people share facilities and responsibilities.

We are a community, not a commodity.

Avatar
tharra
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 85
Member Since:
09/10/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
04/09/2017 - 8:06 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

"Astroturf" in the form of casting shade?

http://www.smh.com.au/business.....y3g1j.html

Avatar
JimmyT
Admin
Forum Posts: 4641
Member Since:
06/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
05/09/2017 - 2:24 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Being a bit of a numbers geek, I spotted a discrepancy in the announced figures and the actual figures in the report.

The Press release says the survey "interviewed 1,001 people including apartment tenants (56%), owner-occupiers (38%) and investors (8%)."

These figure are drawn straight from Table 2 (page 8) of the survey.  However the same table shows the raw figures (the 'n' numbers) of surveyed residents being 455 tenants and 486 owner-occupiers.

Shouldn't the percentages then be closer to 46% tenants and 48% owner-occupiers? A simple accidental transposition of a couple of digits?

Actually, no, says a City of Sydney spokesperson who explains why the raw numbers are less accurate than the published figures: 

The City of Sydney commissioned Woolcott Research and Engagement to conduct an independent survey of strata owners, occupiers and investors within the City of Sydney local government area.

More than half of City residents are under the age of 34 but only around one-third of survey respondents were under 34.  Consequently, in this research, younger respondents were weighted up in the final data tables to take into account their under-representation of younger people.

Woolcott Research advised it is standard practice to weight responses from under-represented demographics to ensure the overall figures accurately reflect the survey population but also to report the raw base sizes (as opposed to weighted base sizes) so readers can see the actual numbers. The n= figures quoted in the question ... are the raw figures.

As younger residents are more likely to be renters, the number of renters surveyed has been weighted up when the age weighting is applied. The weighted base sizes are n=577 tenants, n=379 owner occupies, and n=76 investors.

The survey also reported results by different age-groups and by owners and tenants.  One of the key results is that there are significant differences in attitude towards short-term letting between younger and older residents and tenants and owners.

Now before we even quote the line about "lies, damned lies and statistics" (oops, I just did) I accept the reasoning and don't doubt the result.

It does show you, however, how figures can be manipulated and often are. Airbnb tells us that because they are in less than 1 percent of homes in Sydney, they can't possibly be affecting housing availability or affordability.

But hang on, how many people actually want to come from the USA and Europe to holiday in Bankstown or Mount Druitt?  

When you skew the figures only to take in areas of the city where Airbnb has a significant presence, suddenly you find rents have shot up by two or three times and availability has plummeted.

And at the same time they are claiming that they are barely a blip on the radar, Airbnb are boasting that they have the highest penetration in Australia in the world. The key is, how close do you stand to the radar.

Raw figures are just the ingredients, not the cake. Better to trust figures that have been interpreted by organisations with credibility rather than the distorted views of vested interests for whom numbers are just another weapon in their war of words.  

By the way, does anyone know who funded the recent Tenants Union survey that "proved" Airbnb has no effect on rents or availability? I always thought the Tenants Union was strapped for cash and, in fact,  have used this website to support their fund-raising efforts.

Anyway, would you trust that result more than the recent findings from Sydney University that online short-term letting has taken 6000 homes - or 30 decent-sized apartment blocks - out of the housing market?

Hmmm ... I thought not.

Avatar
Millie
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 213
Member Since:
10/10/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
05/09/2017 - 7:17 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thank goodness for our academics at Sydney University and UNSW.  

It's strange that the NSW Tenants' Union Report is in such disaccord with research and work done by Tenant Union/Bodies across North America, Europe and elsewhere.  The Unions' representatives here in NSW have simply been asked if any of them use/profit from such short-term rentals, given that they are on the public record of saying it's OK to sublet to Airbnb occupiers.  They haven't responded.

There are interesting figures today - found here.

Seems Airbnb-type occupations are in breach of Federal, State, Local, all the way down to Strata legislation.  

What protection for those who've undertaken all due diligence and hold Title Deeds on properties where Short-Term Rentals are specifically excluded and when the NSW Land and Environment Court repeatedly judges mixing them with permanent residents "fundamentally incompatible".

Where will one be able to live if this sort of behaviour/letting/occupation is deemed 'acceptable'; will they carve out new zones which are 'Airbnb-free'?  And goodness knows what such zones will be called if they're not 'Residential'.

And do we throw out regulations and all oversight on every level/type of housing/accommodation/shelter/shack?  If it's 'complying development', can we set up bunk beds all the way through our sub-ground garage levels and run a cheapie, stalag-kinda system down there?  Then there are the Building Codes/National Construction Codes, Disability Access/Discrimination legislation etc - like all those discussed on last night's 4 Corners, Coronial Inquests...

Forum Timezone: Australia/Sydney

Most Users Ever Online: 518

Currently Online:
28 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

kiwipaul: 613

struggler: 459

Austman: 305

Billen Ben: 232

Millie: 213

Cosmo: 170

Kangaroo: 168

considerate band fair: 167

FlatChatFan: 147

daphne diaphanous: 137

Newest Members:

ChrisOldCodger

[email protected]

tonyd

oceancalls

Shazzz

ewright

McCash

Herbie01

Gburraston

Peter M Mills

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 46

Topics: 4398

Posts: 20891

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 241

Members: 5005

Moderators: 4

Admins: 1

Administrators: JimmyT

Moderators: Whale, Sir Humphrey, scotlandx, Lady Penelope