41–50 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Amusing bit of hyperbole in the very first line of the article: “San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is laying down the law — literally. “ Nowhere in the article is it explained how they “literally” are laying down the law.
The phrase "to lay down" has this meaning- > to state officially what someone must do or how they must do it As in, > The Natural Resources Department has laid down tough standards for water quality. Using that meaning this "literally" seems to work just fine.
> “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…
But that’s beside the point, because this is a case about an unlicensed Airbnb. I don’t know what the laws are where you come from, but someone illegally turning their multi-tenant property in a residential neighborhood into a 24-hour motel isn’t someone I have any sympathy for.
Besides, Airbnb is no answer to the dearth of housing in any city. The lawyer is spouting facts. Those are 45 units that would be going to people who would live or work in SF and instead are used to price gouge visitors (relative to the going rent/mortgage rates) who want to save $50 on a hotel room.
Holy shit, how can the city regulate private property like this?
> “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…
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.
Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes? You have different rights as a renter and as a consumer of hotel services. If you claim to be regulated by one (say as a landlord who has several empty units intended for lease) but are operating as the other (essentially an off-books hotel) that is an attempt to manipulate regulators and avoid responsibilities, tax bu…
Amusing bit of hyperbole in the very first line of the article: “San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is laying down the law — literally. “ Nowhere in the article is it explained how they “literally” are laying down the law.
Laying down the law is an idiom. It doesn't have to do with the law. (Someone posted an example specific to laws, which confuses the rhetorical device.)
As laying down the law does NOT have to do with law (e.g. I could "lay down the law" by punching someone in the head for touching my stamp collection), they add "literally" because Dennis Herrera is, in fact, the city attorney and is specifically applying the actual law. So rather than doing something unrelated to the law, which is what the idiom "lay down the law" allows for, the idiom's loose definition now has a literal application regarding the word "law", in this case.
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.
The foundations of all this were established in the early 20th century in cases such as Nebbia v New York[1], Munn v Illinois[2] etc.
For the record, I think these decisions, and the various laws passed by cities in an effort to protect hotel owners and taxi medallion owners and cable franchise owners etc are both horrible law and horrible economics.
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.