There are essentially Airbnb hotels in Seattle too (e.g. JMFM+R8 Seattle, Washington), I wonder if they’re in violation as well.
SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
51–60 of 157 posts
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pr…
SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#53Earlier 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.
People aren't misusing the word. Hyperbole always doesn't mean what it says. The meaning of the statement "my head just exploded" is that my head just exploded. The meaning of the statement "my head just literally exploded" is the same but maybe stronger. The hyperbole applies to the whole phrase and makes the whole thing mean something other than the literal definition of the words.
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#54> “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…
Property owners are responsible for the housing crisis. The city is at their whim. 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…
Either they're being price gouged or they're saving $50 on a hotel room. You can't have it both ways.
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#55There are essentially Airbnb hotels in Seattle too (e.g. JMFM+R8 Seattle, Washington), I wonder if they’re in violation as well.
You could find out if interested (Department of Finance and Administrative Services contact info on that page, who regulates short term [ie AirBnB] accommodations).
http://www.seattle.gov/business-regulations/short-term-renta...
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pr…
SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
[deleted]
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#57Rather than putting restrictions on what private people can do with their property, I'm starting to think the city should consider bulldozing some of the GG park to put up affordable housing or renting it out for cheap to those who need it where the city of San Francisco would be the landlord.
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pr…
SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.
Pardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#59Rather than putting restrictions on what private people can do with their property, I'm starting to think the city should consider bulldozing some of the GG park to put up affordable housing or renting it out for cheap to those who need it where the city of San Francisco would be the landlord.
Yeah what a great idea to destroy one of the city's great landmark.
Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
#60What 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.
Hotel owners do not want competition. For a politician, it is easier to extract surplus from a limited number of hotel owners than from a large number of people renting their individual units. So, under the appropriate excuse, a law preventing competition is passed. 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 t…
This is a pretty short-sighted view, in my opinion.
Regulation also means working fire alarms, access for disabled persons, and a whole lot of other things that are far from guaranteed with unscrupulous building owners in a booming housing market.
The right solution is in the middle somewhere, but it's insufficient to simply call this a case of regulatory oversight.