View Full Version : Wanted: Public feedback on short-term stays for private homes
princess_morbucks
21-01-15, 13:20
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/wanted-public-feedback-on/1605042.html
http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/Surveys/short-term-stay
matadorepy
23-01-15, 06:32
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/wanted-public-feedback-on/1605042.html
http://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/Surveys/short-term-stay
Erection time gimmick ?
Survey done yesterday...no no for me.
I am afraid your voice may be drown out....
You know why there is that survey?
Because some VERY LOUD minority want to be able to provide very short-term rentals and hence lobby govt and URA to relax the rules on short-term rental in private properties!
I won't be surprise there will be more "YES YES YES!!!" returned in the SURVEY then "NO" because most who don't intent to provide short-term rental don't bother to provide survey.
So, govt and URA needs to know the whole story and grasp the big picture first....
For those looking to rent out their private properties for very short-term rentals, they seem to have no regard to getting MONETARY BENEFITS while passing on the AGONY and ADDITIONAL COSTS to their neighbours.........
If they want to earn rentals, they should just go and buy hotel rooms to rent or invest in CDL etc which operate hotels! Don't come and tell us that they want to operate their private condos just like hotel rooms! Condos are not suppose to be commercial outfits like hotels and so why should govt allow condos owners to rent out their condos just like hotel rooms? :tsk-tsk:
Furthermore, allowing short-term rentals basically means govt allowing these people not to pay taxes on their rental incomes (because no paper trace and record of such rental income needs to filed with govt vs tenancy agreement that needs to be stamped). Would we honestly expect these landlords to honestly file incomes on such short term rentals? Not sure whether many of people have such intention that is die die cannot have long-term rental which needs TA to be stamped?
Survey done yesterday...no no for me.
AssetRichMoneyPoor
23-01-15, 10:38
I am afraid your voice may be drown out....
You know why there is that survey?
Because some VERY LOUD minority want to be able to provide very short-term rentals and hence lobby govt and URA to relax the rules on short-term rental in private properties!
I won't be surprise there will be more "YES YES YES!!!" returned in the SURVEY then "NO" because most who don't intent to provide short-term rental don't bother to provide survey.
So, govt and URA needs to know the whole story and grasp the big picture first....
For those looking to rent out their private properties for very short-term rentals, they seem to have no regard to getting MONETARY BENEFITS while passing on the AGONY and ADDITIONAL COSTS to their neighbours.........
If they want to earn rentals, they should just go and buy hotel rooms to rent or invest in CDL etc which operate hotels! Don't come and tell us that they want to operate their private condos just like hotel rooms! Condos are not suppose to be commercial outfits like hotels and so why should govt allow condos owners to rent out their condos just like hotel rooms? :tsk-tsk:
Furthermore, allowing short-term rentals basically means govt allowing these people not to pay taxes on their rental incomes (because no paper trace and record of such rental income needs to filed with govt vs tenancy agreement that needs to be stamped). Would we honestly expect these landlords to honestly file incomes on such short term rentals? Not sure whether many of people have such intention that is die die cannot have long-term rental which needs TA to be stamped?
i like to just chip in a little side-track thoughts.
since the demise of ringgo, teddybear you have been posting more meaningful and constructive comments which i'd learn to appreciate.
where it used to be full blown showdown what-not, admin's decision has been justified that this forum still can command traffic.
on the topic of short stay, i'm dead against it considering the inconveniences and social ills it may create.
the potential list is too many to list or even to start off. i will be giving my thoughts in the survey and hope our wise leaders can take a cue.
i know of units that has been vacant for even up to 9 months, the terrible wait for tenants is so agonizing one can easily swayed by thoughts of minimum compensation offered by short stays. that said i would stand firm even if i'm the one being affected :)
Other than the monetary motive, some also argue that allowing short term stay is necessary is spore wants to be truly tourism friendly. I think this argument is flawed because unlike other countries spore is so small & any tourist can go from one end of the island to another is one hour. There is also no lack of hotel amenities. The quality of tourists is also another factor, we want genuine tourists, not economic refugees.
If Singapore wants to be tourist friendly and project better image for tourists, it should ban short-term rentals because those owners of the properties have no means to keep up the hygiene standard compared to hotels/service apartments, especially let tourists see the ugly side of those selfish landlords so keep to milk the tourists and his/her neighbours, and let tourists see the ugly life-style and rude and inconsiderate manners of some local people? What if the tourists get molested or raped or robbed by those fake short-term rental "landlords"? :glee:
Even if tourists want cheaper accommodations, there are lots of these around in Singapore, don't need to allow condos to provide short-term rentals.
Other than the monetary motive, some also argue that allowing short term stay is necessary is spore wants to be truly tourism friendly. I think this argument is flawed because unlike other countries spore is so small & any tourist can go from one end of the island to another is one hour. There is also no lack of hotel amenities. The quality of tourists is also another factor, we want genuine tourists, not economic refugees.
Allthepies
23-01-15, 19:24
We also do not want illegal transient workers! Banned short term renting once and for all!
I'm against it.
The ONLY benefit is monetary for some individuals. Everything else is negative. I can't believe Sporeans have to resort to this for an income. What has this society become ?
What "improving tourism" nonsense. There are plenty of backpack hotels around. And please this is no "home stay".
Allthepies
23-01-15, 19:42
This whole thread should be submitted to URA. These are real concerns against short term renting.
This whole thread should be submitted to URA. These are real concerns against short term renting.
The authorities have probably already made the decision. It's more of finding ways to cope with the concerns.
You will probably end up with a special insurance scheme, landlords for short term rentals paying more maintenance, and requirement for these landlords to place a deposit of three months at market rate.
If govt allows short-term rentals for private properties, they should have even more justification to allow short-term rentals for HDB flats!
HDB flats' owners need the EXTRA pocket money more than private property owners! :ashamed1:
The authorities have probably already made the decision. It's more of finding ways to cope with the concerns.
You will probably end up with a special insurance scheme, landlords for short term rentals paying more maintenance, and requirement for these landlords to place a deposit of three months at market rate.
If govt allows short-term rentals for private properties, they should have even more justification to allow short-term rentals for HDB flats!
HDB flats' owners need the EXTRA pocket money more than private property owners! :ashamed1:
Hehe last I checked, vacancy rates for private properties seem to be way higher than HDB vacancy. It's true that hdb owners may not earn as much, but debts plus increasing interest rates should affect private property owners first. Else HDB should start this discussion and not URA.
To be honest, I prefer no short term rentals for private because I would prefer not to have short term renters in the place I reside. When bad things happen, I hope that people responsible are accountable.
Even during excessive economic boom, vacancy rates of private properties in CCR is still 3+%....... What does that tell us? It means that the high vacancy rate in CCR is by purpose, because those people can afford to leave their private properties vacant.
The reason govt allows HDB flats to be rented out now is because they want to allow HDB owners to monetarize their properties.
So, What better way to earn lucrative return than short-term rentals?????????
Hehe last I checked, vacancy rates for private properties seem to be way higher than HDB vacancy. It's true that hdb owners may not earn as much, but debts plus increasing interest rates should affect private property owners first. Else HDB should start this discussion and not URA.
To be honest, I prefer no short term rentals for private because I would prefer not to have short term renters in the place I reside. When bad things happen, I hope that people responsible are accountable.
I'm against it.
The ONLY benefit is monetary for some individuals. Everything else is negative. I can't believe Sporeans have to resort to this for an income. What has this society become ?
What "improving tourism" nonsense. There are plenty of backpack hotels around. And please this is no "home stay".
Yeah, the tourism angle is utter bollocks. Some callers to the radio talk back show cited that as one justification for short term rental.
Allthepies
23-01-15, 22:02
Revenue from short term tourists rentals in condominium are very hard to tax, the land lords will probably not declare them.
Revenue from hotel stays are easily accounted and properly taxed generating revenue for the government.
From economy point of view, it makes more sense for the government to curb short term residential rental by tourists.
Even during excessive economic boom, vacancy rates of private properties in CCR is still 3+%....... What does that tell us? It means that the high vacancy rate in CCR is by purpose, because those people can afford to leave their private properties vacant.
The reason govt allows HDB flats to be rented out now is because they want to allow HDB owners to monetarize their properties.
So, What better way to earn lucrative return than short-term rentals?????????
I never said CCR... only said private. Anyway URA consultation is only for private. And the largest groups of short term rentals in airbnb and some other websites was Bukit Timah I thought.
proud owner
23-01-15, 22:45
I agree that the decision is probably already made ... survey is just to find out what the people are thinking, so that govt can counter those arguments.
By allowing short term rental, whats stopping condo from being turned into 'ONS' spots ?
Yes URA consultation is only for private properties, but that does not mean that short-term rentals can be allowed LEGALLY in private condos but RULED ILLEGAL in HDB flats - That would be called DOUBLE STANDARD.
I don't believe the Singapore govt and MND and Minister Khaw want to be known for implementing policy with "DOUBLE STANDARD"?
If private condos are LEGALLY allowed to provide short-term rentals, then it is also time for HDB flats to be able to provide short-term rentals, especially when HDB flat owners need these LUCRATIVE MONEY more the the private condo owners!
I never said CCR... only said private. Anyway URA consultation is only for private. And the largest groups of short term rentals in airbnb and some other websites was Bukit Timah I thought.
tourism angle?
Oh I just remember the SARS incident!
If the tourists who later found to be SARS carriers or come into contact with SARS live in hotels, the hotels have proper records of their clients, so when SARS etc outbreak, MOH can easily do contact-tracing on the people who come into contact with SARS carriers.
Imagine this SARS carriers now allowed to live in short-term rental in private condos, no records, nobody know where he/she stays, even if they later found out, MOH also no way to know how many other tourists and who are they have stayed in the same private condos. Ask MOH, how to do contact-tracing? All hells will break lose! SARS will spread everywhere in Singapore, including deep into private residential estates and all hell will break lose! Singapore will DIE DIE DIE! Everybody will avoid Singapore, including citizens!
Yeah, the tourism angle is utter bollocks. Some callers to the radio talk back show cited that as one justification for short term rental.
I have feedback NO to URA, and in the "reasons", I asked them to refer to the two threads of discussions here.
Regulators
31-01-15, 10:12
Private resident owners should be able to lease out short term as long as there are strict regulations in place and proper controls. It benefits the govt who are also able to tax short term rentals as they are reported. The other thing is why should tourists only be restricted to staying in a hotel if they choose to experience a few days of Singaporean living in a home with the owners around?
Private resident owners should be able to lease out short term as long as there are strict regulations in place and proper controls. It benefits the govt who are also able to tax short term rentals as they are reported. The other thing is why should tourists only be restricted to staying in a hotel if they choose to experience a few days of Singaporean living in a home with the owners around?
This "experience a few days of Singaporean living in a home with the owners around" has been cited as one of the reason. But this is already happening. There are websites where homeowners in various countries can register as hosts and invite overseas visitors to stay with them for short stay. The hospitality is reciprocated vice versa.
Regulators
31-01-15, 10:56
People do post on airbnb etc but that is illegal. The authorities see it as futile to stop such activities so at least they are smart to think of ways to legalise it n become a potential source of revenue for them.
This "experience a few days of Singaporean living in a home with the owners around" has been cited as one of the reason. But this is already happening. There are websites where homeowners in various countries can register as hosts and invite overseas visitors to stay with them for short stay. The hospitality is reciprocated vice versa.
Do you think the authority is so stupid to legally allow short-term rental that will not come with proper records, so that taxes will be lost (because who sincerely believe most of them would report such incomes?), short-term rentals flourish, and hotels have to close shop and the authority loses more legit tax revenue, deteriorates Singapore hotels' industry and service standards, and the vicious cycles continue??????
And then when SARS, Ebola etc got brought into Singapore by these tourists, there is no proper records, proper contact tracing can't be done, SARS / Ebola got spread into private estates and all over Singapore? URA can do it if they want to push ultimate responsibility when such thing happened to MOH then.................. (Don't know whether MOH so stupid and don't voice out this problem first-hand or not???) :simmering:
People do post on airbnb etc but that is illegal. The authorities see it as futile to stop such activities so at least they are smart to think of ways to legalise it n become a potential source of revenue for them.
What Teddybear said makes a lot of sense, authorities and landlords should not be blinded by short-term monetary benefits, there are too many concerns as mentioned repetitively in many of his posts already, and we should say NO to short-term stays for private homes!
Regulators
31-01-15, 12:00
If airborne viruses are going to spread, they can spread at the airport, crowded shopping malls, mrt trains etc, which have a higher catchment of people. Based on your logic, hotels should also be situated far from crowded shopping malls since tourists have potential of spreading ebola to shoppers in malls near the hotels. Your argument has no rationale.
Do you think the authority is so stupid to legally allow short-term rental that will not come with proper records, so that taxes will be lost (because who sincerely believe most of them would report such incomes?), short-term rentals flourish, and hotels have to close shop and the authority loses more legit tax revenue, deteriorates Singapore hotels' industry and service standards, and the vicious cycles continue??????
And then when SARS, Ebola etc got brought into Singapore by these tourists, there is no proper records, proper contact tracing can't be done, SARS / Ebola got spread into private estates and all over Singapore? URA can do it if they want to push ultimate responsibility when such thing happened to MOH then.................. (Don't know whether MOH so stupid and don't voice out this problem first-hand or not???) :simmering:
My argument has rationale or not, you may want to write to MOH to clarify because they are the one in-charge of contact-tracing when SARS outbreak occurred, then you will understand.....................
If airborne viruses are going to spread, they can spread at the airport, crowded shopping malls, mrt trains etc, which have a higher catchment of people. Based on your logic, hotels should also be situated far from crowded shopping malls since tourists have potential of spreading ebola to shoppers in malls near the hotels. Your argument has no rationale.
We shouldn't so quickly dismiss this idea.. About the difficulty in collecting tax, its easier to collect tax when its legitimised: just like its easier to control prostitution when its legal.
it is well known that some condos have a high proportion of chickens anyway...so its not as if you can weed out unsavoury activity. The fact is: if rents are low, unsavoury characters will come, whether or not its long or short term lease. Also nobody who wants a one night stand will go to AirBnB instead of a budget hotel where they can pay hourly rate!?
So this idea sounds worthwhile, if there are proper safeguards e.g. insurance for any damage caused by the tourists.
Can't imagine how lively condominiums will be if very short term rental is allowed and people start drinking liquor by the pool past 2230 as per Iswaran. Ban liquor in public places and push them to private areas managed by incompetent managing agents. Then need to employ guards and increase the maintenance funds to cover repairs and cost of hiring security and cleaner staff... It is all planned.
Submitted my survey. a BIG NO to short-term stays!
It is not about right or wrong. Both side can produce "make sense argument". It is about Voting (if government really follow the voting/survey result).
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/housing/story/more-70-cent-favour-temporary-home-rentals-singapore-airbnb-poll-201502
More people are already in favour? They should start a poll in this forum.
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/housing/story/more-70-cent-favour-temporary-home-rentals-singapore-airbnb-poll-201502
More people are already in favour? They should start a poll in this forum.
That is airbnb's own poll, lol.
If the govt allows short term stays, it will be a strong reason for me not to vote for the ruling party.
Regulators
17-02-15, 10:00
Good move by airbnb!
That is airbnb's own poll, lol.
If the govt allows short term stays, it will be a strong reason for me not to vote for the ruling party.
airbnb's own poll is a joke!
This should poll this forum here, a property forum make up of property owners! Don't know who they polled that gets the type of results entirely in their favour? :chargrined:
That is airbnb's own poll, lol.
If the govt allows short term stays, it will be a strong reason for me not to vote for the ruling party.
airbnb's own poll is a joke!
This should poll this forum here, a property forum make up of property owners! Don't know who they polled that gets the type of results entirely in their favour? :chargrined:
Do the poll here
http://forums.condosingapore.com/showthread.php/23362-Questionnaire-on-Short-Term-Stays
Till now still 50/50
The Decision already make, the poll is just to let people happy they have a say.
Do you want to stay in a village or move to the city.
The Decision already make, the poll is just to let people happy they have a say.
Do you want to stay in a village or move to the city.
I think people still prefer kampung.
Well, landlords will volunteer to be in the council to ease their renting out of apartments. Retirees will have income or things to do to kill time...
The devil is in the details and the implementation.
If ST rental is allowed, should buy cheap landed terrace, then re-partition to many rooms (12 or more) and rent out cheaply, can do roaring business!
In condos, genuine MC members who really used to volunteer their time to work for free will back out to allow those with vested interests to take-over so that these people can do roaring business with ST rentals!
May be MC members will get to collect FAT ALLOWANCES that is tax-free, just like MPs who collect $15k+ a month tax-free for just a night's job per week and average a day per month in parliament?
Well, landlords will volunteer to be in the council to ease their renting out of apartments. Retirees will have income or things to do to kill time...
The devil is in the details and the implementation.
Honestly I am very subjected when I vote for YES. I see my self in the future as old person and Not sure whether my CPF is enough for me. To play safe it would be good for me if I can make money from my condo when I am too old to do a real job.
Honestly I am very subjected when I vote for YES. I see my self in the future as old person and Not sure whether my CPF is enough for me. To play safe it would be good for me if I can make money from my condo when I am too old to do a real job.
Don't mind me saying but that would be rather short sighted. Being able to monetise your asset does not mean its capital value is being protected. If old age retirement is a concern, you should be lobbying the govt to tweak or relook its policies in that area, and I don't mean a one-off "pioneer" package.
Don't mind me saying but that would be rather short sighted. Being able to monetise your asset does not mean its capital value is being protected. If old age retirement is a concern, you should be lobbying the govt to tweak or relook its policies in that area, and I don't mean a one-off "pioneer" package.
Do not worry. Every one have their own share to express their Vote. It is not about right or wrong. It is about what the majority want.
Allthepies
19-02-15, 15:06
If short term rental is allowed, then it is another case of majority (residents + landlords with long-term views) losing out for the benefits of a very very small minority.
So the case is really really very clear cut if you want to benefit the majority : )
Regulators
19-02-15, 18:43
People doing rental whether short or long term are always in the small minority in comparison to the entire population. This is not a case of majority beating the minority in votes, but how the govt can balance the rights of minority and majority. It is very much like the argument for and against allowing smoking in eateries like coffeeshops, there will always be those for and against.
If short term rental is allowed, then it is another case of majority (residents + landlords with long-term views) losing out for the benefits of a very very small minority.
So the case is really really very clear cut if you want to benefit the majority : )
People doing rental whether short or long term are always in the small minority in comparison to the entire population. This is not a case of majority beating the minority in votes, but how the govt can balance the rights of minority and majority. It is very much like the argument for and against allowing smoking in eateries like coffeeshops, there will always be those for and against.
Yes, there will be those supporting and those rejecting the idea. For the next 3 elections at least, Singapore is only ready for short term stay if enforcement is effective and managed by honest Singaporeans. Jobs created should not to be outsourced to foreign imports and to benefit them. The ancillary opportunities must go to supporting true blue Singaporeans.
If Singapore government and MND legislates to allow short-term stay, then they better tell us how they are going to contact-trace the people/tourists/foreigners who come into contact with disease/virus-carriers (like below case)?
As we know, short-term stay do not have proper records of who stay in the unit, and there is no way for MOH to do proper contact-tracing of foreigners/tourists who stayed in short-term stay private properties!
When such thing happens, should we blame MND or MOH? Don't tell me it will become another case of "unsweep pathway" because nobody claim responsibility? (That is why need to set up a new board/body to act as a one-stop hotline? ops, who remember what is that board/body called?)
China Airlines stewardess possibly spreads rubella to over 1,000 passengers
By Chi-hao James Lo
China Post/Asia News Network | Fri, Mar 20 2015
Send a tip
Print
TAIPEI, Taiwan - The Centres for Disease Control yesterday said that a female flight attendant of China Airlines unknowingly contracted rubella, urging the CDC to try and conduct follow-ups with up to 1,558 people.
CDC Deputy Director-General Chuang Jen-hsiang told local news that an unnamed CAL flight attendant from Northern Taiwan developed symptoms of rubella on March 14, such as fever, a runny nose and skin rash.
The individual received a diagnosis on March 18 that confirmed rubella, and is currently confined to quarantine Chuang said.
According to the mandatory health inspection cards people filled out at immigration, Chuang said that the individual was likely infected between Feb. 21 and Feb. 28. The case is currently ruled as a case that was contracted from abroad, with potential areas narrowed down to Vietnam, Indonesia and Hong Kong.
Chuang also said that during the estimated period of the disease's communicability, the flight attendant had served on six international flights.
The first two were on a March 8 roundtrip from Taoyuan to Fukuoka, Japan on flights CI116 and CI117. The second two were between March 10 to 11, on flights CI110 and CI111 which were also a roundtrip from Taoyuan to Fukuoka.
The final two flights were on a roundtrip between March 13 and 14 on flights CI753 and CI754 on a roundtrip from Taoyuan to Singapore.
The deputy director-general said that it has been confirmed that 686 nationals and 872 foreign passengers had been in contact with the flight attendant.
Chuang said that the CDC has successfully contacted 72 out of the 686 local individuals.
As such, the CDC implores that all nationals aboard the listed flights to call the 1922 Disease Prevention Hotline or contact their local health department for observation and care.
As for the other international passengers, Chuang said, the CDC will contact the related health organisations in the 11 countries in accordance with international health regulations.
- See more at: http://travel.asiaone.com/article/news/china-airlines-stewardess-possibly-spreads-rubella-to-over-1000-passengers#sthash.XZT0nCeP.dpuf
People doing rental whether short or long term are always in the small minority in comparison to the entire population. This is not a case of majority beating the minority in votes, but how the govt can balance the rights of minority and majority. It is very much like the argument for and against allowing smoking in eateries like coffeeshops, there will always be those for and against.
ura only allows more than 6 months stay.
That number seems to be arbitary.
what if URA has put minimum of 1 year stay.
Then have consultation about the minimum being changed to 6 months.
I am pretty sure the same arguments would be brought if URA were to change to 6 months.
Yet presently, people are pretty happy with the current regulation of minimum 6 mths stay.
I guess people dont pretty much like change.
people happy with min 6 months.
then change to min 5months, people grumble & accept, not much different between 5 and 6 months.
then change to min 4months, people grumble & accept, not much different between 4 and 5 months.
then change to min 3months, people grumble & accept, not much different between 3 and 4 months.
then change to min 2months, people grumble & accept, not much different between 2 and 3 months.
then change to min 1months, people grumble & accept, not much different between 1 and 2 months.
then change to min 3weeks, people grumble & accept, not much different between 3weeks and 1 month.
then change to min 2weeks, people grumble & accept, not much different between 2 and 3weeks.
then change to min 1week, people grumble & accept, not much different between 1 and 2weeks.
then change to min 3day, people grumble & accept, not much different between 3days and 1week.
then change to min 1day, people grumble & accept, not much different between 1day and 3days.
so whats the problem, people need time to adjust from min 6months to min 1day?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.