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

101–110 of 157 posts

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

#101

Post by bcheung »

ihm wrote: post #74
bcheung wrote: post #31

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?

“Letting supply and demand decide” means deciding to give the housing to whoever will pay the most: which group do you think will pay more, the entire world of tourists who want to visit SF on vacation or people who live here? Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?

I think it varies.

There are a large class of landlords that will favor longer term tenants because it is lower risk / less hassle.

There are also many cases where renting long term is more profitable as well if the home can't be booked consistently. There has always been a "volume discount" incentive for business owners.

I would say there is economic incentive for both interests.

I don't claim to have the right to assert my opinion on other renters and landlords. I don't think others should either. Who I think is more important is none of my business. That's between the renter and the landlord IMO.

Markets, based on supply and demand, have a natural tendency to find balance between the interests of multiple parties.

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

#102

Post by baddox »

devindotcom wrote: post #22
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.

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…

> Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes?

It's clear that a lot of people take this for granted, but I don't. I don't see why the rights of one group ought to be different or more important than the rights of another group.

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

#103

Post by baddox »

traek wrote: post #80
bcheung wrote: post #31

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 tourists tend to impose negative externalities upon the city (like getting drunk and throwing up in the streets), and long-term residents tend to impose positive externalities (like planting flowerboxes at their windows). Also because residents pay for public services via taxes, and tourists staying in illegal Airbnbs don't even pay hotel taxes. Also because residents, not tourists, vote.

I think the government has a legitimate role in maintaining order in the streets. I don't think the government has any legitimate role in influencing the number of flowerboxes in windows.

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

#104

Post by intrasight »

The fines have to be large enough to discourage breaking the law. Is it a good law? I generally trust the residents to pass laws that make sense for those that live there. What I want to understand is what makes SF different from other cities in terms of zoning laws?

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

#105

Post by pj_mukh »

madeuptempacct wrote: post #90
taurath wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I actually understand it. Ironically, a San Francisco resident Uber driver explained it to me. She said something like "People like the small city feel without over-population, people like the view from almost anywhere in the city - we don't want to to be another new your. And while the skeptic in me sees "Property owners don't want prices to go down," I also see the other side now. San Fran wouldn't be San Fran even…

After moving here, I see this point too. However, there's very clearly parts of the city that could look like Taipei and the city still wouldn't lose its look at feel.

Feel free to stick all of us Techies in Gigantic high-rises in Dogpatch and Mission-bay to bring the housing costs down everywhere else (and stop playing these band-aid games with Airbnb)

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

#106

Post by tjr225 »

crwalker wrote: post #26
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…

With an attitude like this, SF will be the next Detroit. Exponential economic curves always turn out to be sigmoids, and when the sigmoid flattens and the economy is carrying tremendous dead weight predicated on future increasing prosperity, the city will be out of options.

Would actually be pretty cool - but SF is far more beautiful than Detroit so, doubtful that it will ever collapse to that extent.

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

#107

Post by aikah »

seattle_spring wrote: post #64
ppeetteerr wrote: post #42

Airbnb is suing NY right now because the city wants the names and addresses of those who are illegally renting without registering their apartments. I believe it's called "disruption"

So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?

> So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?

What aboutism of the worst kind. This isn't "law enforcement", this is the justice system. And yes,if a judge legally approves such subpoena then corporations need to follow the law. If you don't like the law then change it through democratic means. Neither Facebook nor Airbnb are above the law. The era of "disruption" where anything went because "we're just an app" is over.

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

#108

Post by coryrc »

baddox wrote: post #100
bobthepanda wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The licensing is not to ensure quality, the licensing is to restrict supply of hotel units. Not to keep hotels in business, but because people simply do not like having short-term visitors as neighbors or floormates. It's not a win for city licensed landlords. It's a win for residents. Residents are ultimately voters. And AirBnB is bad for the vast majority of residents.

> people simply do not like having short-term visitors as neighbors or floormates. That's a commonly provided explanation, but I find it very hard to believe that existing laws and leasing rules can't/don't already easily solve this. If too many instances of noise complaints, property damage, improper trash disposal, etc. occur from your property, you (the owner or renter) get fined or evicted. It's obviously not an…

I've been dealing with a neighbor with a barking dog for months. Good neighbor laws are essentially unenforced in the USA.

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

#109

Post by dvtrn »

CPLX wrote: post #97
dvtrn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look I had to be sure, I've never seen anyone actually suggest eminent domain so casually before. The only times I've seen it have been in grainy, fuzzy news reports from the 80's.

You’re kidding right? Eminent domain is used daily in the US and around the world. It would literally be impossible to build and maintain a transportation network without it.

Okay but we're talking about razing houses and replacing it not with infrastructure and transportation networks but with more housing in a state with already a quarter of the nation's homeless population.

I have so many questions about what happens in that regional development council hypothetical with astronomically high housing prices and homelessness:

- Do you play benevolent city planner and let current residents in these low density zones stay, redevelop around them? This is already happening without much help needed from the city, hastening that seems to be a good way to add to the homeless population resulting from displaced families fleeing the inevitable raise in property value and therefore taxes, no?

- Do you play well meaning but forward marching city planner who has to watch families move out of their city acquired land and homes, sure probably with a check in hand and a pat on the back hoping they make it-when realistically the market probably, very likely (A) don't have room for them or (B) probably out of their financial range to even relocate to nearby neighborhoods?

I just don't see a path forward here for SF using eminent domain that doesn't come with some very painful outcomes that probably exacerbate the very problem it would intend to solve. An unforced error.

Perhaps I'm overthinking the conceit here, but it's an experience I've lived through, so maybe that explains why my eyebrow immediately shot up.

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

#110

Post by ta_egdhs »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #44
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…

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…

>gouge visitors

>save $50 on a hotel

how the hell can you simultaneously be gouged and save money?

what makes the long term resident more deserving than the short term visitor? why should the rootless pay a subsidy to the rooted?

Post reply on HN