Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

travel.usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 145 posts

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#131

Post by mikecane »

kiba wrote: post #80
jawngee wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly why I'm growing tired of social news sites too. Instead of responding in disagreement, you get downvoted. The whole thing is cowardly and/or lazy. Whomever downvoted me, you are telling me that you wouldn't mind a constant rotation of complete strangers taking residence in the apartment across the hall from you with no recourse for liability?

There's no reason to license and regulate if you can fine people with noise pollution and other negative externalities that come out of their property. If you disrupt the neighbors with loud musics, wild partying, etc, you will pay a fine. All the neighbors have to do is sue you in court and it should be easy to prove it so. That will kill many birds with one stone and eliminate vectors that allows people to choose w…

By the way, noisy neighbors: http://tenant.net/Rights/Noise/index.html

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#132

Post by zupatol »

koanarc wrote: post #92
zupatol wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is created by laws, laws are created by politicians, politicians are elected. That's how a democracy should work, anyway. City planning is something complicated where I'm not so sure a pure market-driven solution would be optimal. Markets only allocate resources well when there are no externalities. They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. A good example of poor city planning caused by the ma…

>> The market is created by laws I always thought that the market was created by two people engaging in a voluntary exchange of goods and services. I'm not 100% sure about the "laws are created by politicians" bit, either, seeing as most politicians scarcely even read most legislation, much less understand it. Although I suppose you did qualify that as the way things should work.

Markets can't work without property rights. If people agree on property rights, they have implicitly created a law.

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#133

Post by zupatol »

w00pla wrote: post #49
zupatol wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is created by laws, laws are created by politicians, politicians are elected. That's how a democracy should work, anyway. City planning is something complicated where I'm not so sure a pure market-driven solution would be optimal. Markets only allocate resources well when there are no externalities. They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. A good example of poor city planning caused by the ma…

> They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. What is the "fair distribution of wealth"? I personally believe that you are only entitled to the wealth you yourself created (or which someone voluntary gave you). Isn't that a fair distribution of wealth? Or what other metrics do you use?

I was talking from a theoretic point of view. In standard economic theory an outcome is considered good if it makes all participants better off. Economists consider that people can agree on this.

Economists don't even try to answer the question of which distribution of wealth is fair. That's why mainstream economic theory does not concern itself with this question. All the economists say is that everybody should be richer if markets work well, they have no opinion about how rich the rich should be.

However the distribution of wealth is a very relevant question to a great number of people. If a majority thinks the outcome of the market is not satisfactory, they can correct it with politics.

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#134

Post by Retric »

mattmillr wrote: post #89
Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hotels pay a lot of taxes in support of local attractions, parks, museums, and other such facilities. It seems reasonable to me that if your rending your place in less than 1 month increments you should be regulated as a hotel and pay those taxes. Now add to that the fact there are external costs to short term rentals (random renters through more wild party's) and banning these seems reasonable to me.

> random renters through more wild party's [sic] Really? Can you back that up. Data please. It's an anecdote, not data (but still more than you've got): In my four months being a random renter I've thrown exactly one party. It was a brunch, and two people came. Not wild at all. I've been to a number of parties that were much "wilder." All thrown by regular tenants. The wildest was attended by the building's doorman.

You stayed for 4 months that's a vary different situation. If you go to NY for a 2 days to 2 weeks you are much more likely to be on vacation and out to party. There are also plenty of other reasons but it's a numbers game and there have been a lot of complaints from people living next door to such property's.

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#135

Post by elblanco »

zupatol wrote: post #47
gruseom wrote: post #8

Yet another illustration of how those with political power are not subject to the discipline of the market.

The market is created by laws, laws are created by politicians, politicians are elected. That's how a democracy should work, anyway. City planning is something complicated where I'm not so sure a pure market-driven solution would be optimal. Markets only allocate resources well when there are no externalities. They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth. A good example of poor city planning caused by the ma…

For some reason your comment on city planning being complicated reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#136

Post by w00pla »

sprout wrote: post #128
w00pla wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starting with the land, water, and air of this Earth, there are many resources that no one created, and no one has the right to give you. If we divide all the land in the world equally, within 20 years some people will have more and some people will have less (due to differing productivity and non-coercive selling). This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive. > In a city, you cannot say tha…

>This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive. Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing. If others could have used the land better, I'd say there's a good deal of unfairness there. It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance. >Blasting music is a different story - you are effecting your nei…

> Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing.

Can't people give their wealth to whomever they want (while they are alive or dead)? In a system such as yours (where the state comes and takes all property like a vulture after someone dies) it means that every old person should spend all his money before he dies. He should also stop working (as many old people (at least in my country) spend their lives working for an inheritance for their children).

I guess such a thing such as working to provide for your children and grandchildren is wrong in your books.

Here is another example in my country: many farmers have children and teach their children farming. This is the only skill that some of them can transfer. The children works on his father's farm. If there are two sons the father will try and buy extra land. The children inherit and divide up the farm after the father’s death. You thus get people living generations on the same farm.

In your ideal communist system, the child will lose his home, his father and his job (through the sin of inheritance).

> It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance.

If all wealth is divided up after inheritance, the best (evolutionary speaking) strategy would be to have as many children as possible. That way, your offspring can have a larger share of someone else’s inheritance.

The idea of the far left, of trying to steal someone’s property after he dies is pretty reprehensible for me. What is worse is their motivation for it. The idea that an individual’s rights (and property) are subservient to the majority. What you are basically saying is that if something is good for the majority, the minority or individual does not have rights.

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#137

Post by Psyonic »

w00pla wrote: post #136
sprout wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive. Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing. If others could have used the land better, I'd say there's a good deal of unfairness there. It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance. >Blasting music is a different story - you are effecting your nei…

> Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing. Can't people give their wealth to whomever they want (while they are alive or dead)? In a system such as yours (where the state comes and takes all property like a vulture after someone dies) it means that every old person should spend all his money before he dies. He should also stop working (as many o…

The ideal of the far right, however, is that if you're born poor, you're screwed. You have no right or reason to expect any help at all.

Neither extreme sounds terribly pleasant.

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#138

Post by Psyonic »

w00pla wrote: post #70
ugh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only the world were as simple as that. Location and family play a huge role in whether you can create (as much) wealth.

Maybe. But here is the thing – do you think it is fair for someone else to subsidize your children (at the cost to themselves)? It is usually the duty of parents to raise their children (and pay for their education). The left however feels that it “takes the village to raise the child” (nice way of saying that someone else should pay for education, etc…). This means that dysfunctional people and families can external…

"Should someone really be allowed to get children if they cannot afford them?"

Probably not, but there's the rub. How do we prevent this? Perhaps if we refuse to bail them out... but are you willing to watch a child starve to death? Will you be the one to pull the plug?

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#139

Post by Psyonic »

jodrellblank wrote: post #116
whakojacko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt they are paying state income tax on income received from renting. Or occupancy tax, for that matter.

You can't reasonably argue on something you 'highly doubt'. I think they surely are paying it. There, it's even again now.

You really think all these people are going to add this to their taxes? As self-employment? And deal with the additional paper-work required?

Let me guess, you think people pay the required state tax at the end of the year for all the tax-free purchases they made on the internet as well?

Re: New York governor approves short-term apartment rental ban in NYC

#140

Post by w00pla »

Psyonic wrote: post #138
w00pla wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But here is the thing – do you think it is fair for someone else to subsidize your children (at the cost to themselves)? It is usually the duty of parents to raise their children (and pay for their education). The left however feels that it “takes the village to raise the child” (nice way of saying that someone else should pay for education, etc…). This means that dysfunctional people and families can external…

"Should someone really be allowed to get children if they cannot afford them?" Probably not, but there's the rub. How do we prevent this? Perhaps if we refuse to bail them out... but are you willing to watch a child starve to death? Will you be the one to pull the plug?

The first thing would be to refuse child grants so to prevent adults from getting children, in order to get welfare. Awarding people for getting children is wrong and stupid.

The second thing is to force mothers to reveal the father of their children. Many do not inform the state who the father is, therefore forcing the taxpayer to pay for raising the child instead of the father.

And probably the best option would be to implement policies similar to China’s one child policy. A good example would be forced sterilization after 3 children if the person receives any form government welfare (or already have kids and is imprisoned).

But in any case, well before this point, the state can spent money on voluntary sterilisation campaigns (i.e. paying the poor and drug addicts to be sterilised).

Post reply on HN