Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: Wanted: Public feedback on short-term stays for private homes

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,429

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,070

    Default

    Survey done yesterday...no no for me.
    "Anyone who has not made a mistake has never tried anything new"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    yes yes for me

  5. #5
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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?

    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by CondoWE View Post
    Survey done yesterday...no no for me.
    Last edited by teddybear; 23-01-15 at 09:41.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    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?

    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    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.

  8. #8
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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"?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    We also do not want illegal transient workers! Banned short term renting once and for all!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    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".

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    This whole thread should be submitted to URA. These are real concerns against short term renting.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allthepies View Post
    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.
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  13. #13
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelonguni View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    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!
    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.
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  15. #15
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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?????????


    Quote Originally Posted by Kelonguni View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    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.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    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.
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    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 ?

  20. #20
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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!


    Quote Originally Posted by Kelonguni View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    Yeah, the tourism angle is utter bollocks. Some callers to the radio talk back show cited that as one justification for short term rental.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    312

    Default

    I have feedback NO to URA, and in the "reasons", I asked them to refer to the two threads of discussions here.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    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?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    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.

  26. #26
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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???)

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    312

    Default

    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!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    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???)

  29. #29
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    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.....................

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators View Post
    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.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    83

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Maxim1; 31-01-15 at 12:43.

Similar Threads

  1. URA proposes safeguards for short-term home stays
    By reporter2 in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 11
    -: 30-04-18, 23:40
  2. URA to seek feedback on short-term home rentals
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 20
    -: 16-11-16, 14:39
  3. URA needs more time to study short-term stays issue
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 1
    -: 19-05-16, 15:27
  4. Questionnaire on Short-Term Stays
    By TABee in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 21
    -: 20-02-15, 22:26
  5. URA reviewing short-term rental of private homes
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 23-01-15, 15:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •