81–90 of 332 posts
“The government knows how to segregate us properly” And “Everything will be cheaper by limiting people the ability to trade”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's literally rent-seeking and leeches wealth from the economy, jacking up prices while contributing nothing?
Of course they do - they manage a place that visitors can stay in. Which is why people pay them. And you're clearly not a landlord if you think it involves no effort. Sure, if a society thinks they cause more harm than good, by all means, ban them, but that's a different argument.
Similar discussions are ongoing in lots of cities. In Edinburgh they're trying to pre-empt this a bit with voluntary restrictions: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-4... AirBnb creates "bad neighbours" by putting lots of tourists, some of whom behave badly, in formerly residential locations. It creates a whole new set of absentee landlords. If it were restricted to renting out places where th…
This is the approach taken in London: Anyone can AirBnB their property, but only for 90 days a year, unless you have special permission. This prevents people buying up/renting flats just to let them out on AirBnB and putting pressure on the already cripplingly bad housing situation.
Just market it as a holiday rental on dates corresponding to big London-based football matches, when people traveling might often pay hugely inflated nightly rates.
Maybe supplement during academic conferences or government events. In the right part of London and for a unit with the right amenities, you probably could still turn a net profit annually just on 90 days, and leaving it empty the rest.
Which would mean it could still negatively affect housing shortage issues and home prices, and still result in poorly behaved tourists nearby for 1/4 of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The authorities would know if a flood of license approvals about to happen before the 15th. But surely there’s not, and on the 15th these units become illegal. Two weeks notice seems much more fair to travelers than waiting till the 15th and cancelling. Rules are followed in Japan. Allowing a grace period for unlicensed rentals was really fair of them.
Your opinion on the fairness of the new order is immaterial to whether Airbnb is feigning surprise the rule is being enforced. They are not.
Yes that’s the aggressive stance when 80% if units are at stake, but it’s Airbnb who is inconsiderate of renters here. They accepted reservations that were bound to be cancelled.
In Amsterdam they already set the limit of allowed rental days per year to 30. Just last month the new city council announced they will completely forbid AirBnB in certain neighbourhoods. As someone who studied and worked most of his life in Amsterdam I welcome these measures a lot.
“The government knows how to segregate us properly” And “Everything will be cheaper by limiting people the ability to trade”
qv the other thread on meaningless work, sometimes people find value in living in a city and neighborhood that isn't completely focused on extracting the maximum economic value at any cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
qv the other thread on meaningless work, sometimes people find value in living in a city and neighborhood that isn't completely focused on extracting the maximum economic value at any cost.
Side point, what does `qv` mean at the start of your comment? I can't find anything with 30 seconds of Googling.
Similar discussions are ongoing in lots of cities. In Edinburgh they're trying to pre-empt this a bit with voluntary restrictions: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-4... AirBnb creates "bad neighbours" by putting lots of tourists, some of whom behave badly, in formerly residential locations. It creates a whole new set of absentee landlords. If it were restricted to renting out places where th…
This is the approach taken in London: Anyone can AirBnB their property, but only for 90 days a year, unless you have special permission. This prevents people buying up/renting flats just to let them out on AirBnB and putting pressure on the already cripplingly bad housing situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems reasonable. The social good of AirBnB is lowering the barrier to increase property utilization. Classifying people into commercial and "sometimes" renters makes sense. If you want your business to be bigger, comply with more regulations.
> increase property utilization This implies that rent should rise to meet nightly AirBnb rates, which has all sorts of implications ..
The rates are very dissimilar, for a number of reasons. Same goes for longer-term rentals vs AirBnB.