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

SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 157 posts

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#31

Post by bcheung »

pertymcpert wrote: post #24
bcheung wrote: post #16

What is the motivation for this law? Why is SF regulating the length of stay or rentors at all? Seems like a gross violation of freedom and property rights. Zoning I can understand but duration? This seems like a bad law.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#32

Post by [deleted] »

bcheung wrote: post #18
jmcgough wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally (adv): 1) in a literal sense or manner. 2) (informal) used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible I literally just did.

This is a fairly recent and controversial change to the word. It was updated officially in the dictionary after people kept misusing the word. So now it means both literally and the complete opposite of literally.

[deleted]

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#33

Post by pertymcpert »

bcheung wrote: post #31
pertymcpert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?

Because people's day to day ability to live in shelter is more important than tourists.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#34

Post by bobthepanda »

georgeburdell wrote: post #23
bcheung wrote: post #16

What is the motivation for this law? Why is SF regulating the length of stay or rentors at all? Seems like a gross violation of freedom and property rights. Zoning I can understand but duration? This seems like a bad law.

This is what SF does: create a ton of laws or regulations so that it’s onerous to not break one, then selectively enforce them when it’s palatable to. Try street parking in SF; it’s like an SAT problem trying to figure out if you’re doing it legally. Arbitrary justice is not good.

The distinction between hotels and residences is pretty standard across the world and is hardly arbitrary.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#35

Post by refurb »

nostromo wrote: post #19

> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#36

Post by refurb »

taurath wrote: post #30
nostromo wrote: post #19

> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…

Why don’t they don’t let people build housing? Voters in the city.

While that's true, they don't have to bend over backwards for those voters. SF supervisors have a lot of leniency in clearing out the construction approval backlog.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#38

Post by jankassens »

adamnemecek wrote: post #27

Holy shit, how can the city regulate private property like this?

This is nothing new. There are many zoning laws restricting what you can do with your land: What can you build? Is commercial and/or residential use allowed? It's very much in line to say if a unit can be used as a hotel-like or not.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#39

Post by ppeetteerr »

nostromo wrote: post #19

> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t t…

It's not the city. The residents of the municipalities do not want to build new buildings.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#40

Post by toomuchtodo »

refurb wrote: post #36
taurath wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don’t they don’t let people build housing? Voters in the city.

While that's true, they don't have to bend over backwards for those voters. SF supervisors have a lot of leniency in clearing out the construction approval backlog.

It seems...foolish to not bend over backwards for those who control your destiny through democratic actions. Property owners have the most to lose, and therefore the most incentive to keep their neighborhood as-is. I find it hard to fault them for their actions (especially when you're investing seven figures into your home's purchase).

The core problem is that SF property owners value their homes, communities, and property values over the inclusion of additional residents, and that won't change without stripping this constituency of their property and voting rights (which is of course untenable in a functioning democracy).

Post reply on HN