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

111–120 of 157 posts

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

#111

Post by Green_man »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #39
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.

Is it the residents (many of whom are tenants), or the owners specifically who are resistant to new housing?

I've always heard it was the owners, but as someone who doesn't live in SF, I can't verify.

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

#112

Post by taurath »

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…

Right - those advocating for more housing have almost nothing to offer the people already locked in. This to me is the crux of the problem.

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

#113

Post by pertymcpert »

torgian wrote: post #79
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.

How is renting it out with Airbnb different from an owner just holding onto the property and not living in it? If anything, cities should encourage property owners to rent out spare rooms or empty apartments to tourists to bring in that spending money.

Because by banning AirBnB short rentals, the rooms and entire properties will then be more likely used to house permanent residents. Owners will be financially incentivized to provide it for the residential rental market, or to sell it, versus not doing anything with it and paying the property taxes.

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

#114

Post by awad »

The city government would like to blame illegal Airbnb rentals for contributing to the housing crisis but at the same time still enforces strict height limits on buildings because NIMBYism. It won't be today, or tomorrow, but eventually SF and the greater Bay Area will no longer be sustainable as the major economic hub it is without some serious change. You can't complain about increasing income inequality and cost of living problems without addressing the core component that makes up the cost of living...

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

#115

Post by nanis »

matchbok wrote: post #83
nanis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 his incredible inaccurate. Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented. The fact that these interests align with the hotel industry is irrelevant. Most of the profit AirBnb generates is from huge, commercial interests renting out 10+ rooms and entire houses. That strains supply and disrupts neighborhoods.

> Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented.

See, e.g., "Hotel Money Is Funding Anti-Airbnb Sting Operations"[1].

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/hotel-mon...

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

#116

Post by tomc1985 »

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…

> This city attorney seems... extra.

Good. Extra is what you need to stand up to SV clout

How do you propose convincing propertyowners to finance their own vertical construction?

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

#117

Post by sintaxi »

zjaffee wrote: post #63
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…

Building housing isn't the solution to solving the problem created by airbnb, as most airbnb units would be competing for tenants towards the bottom of the market, and would likely be rent controlled, when compared to new housing that competes for tenants at the top of the market.

There is good reason why its called the LAW of supply and demand.

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

#118

Post by bobthepanda »

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…

People want zero short-term visitors as neighbors, and the law reflects that.

Landlords, under existing US law, are only really liable for tenant nuisance if they should have known that the nuisance was likely (e.g., an aggressive dog in the apartment.) It's hard to really argue that you could tell anything about noisy short-term visitors, since fine upstanding members of society on a weekend trip may turn out to be party animals at night.

Short-term rentals are even more difficult to enforce against just because there is a shortage of police and inspector manpower in most major cites; by the time one is able to get to you the visitor may have left already. And first offence is generally just a warning, but a warning is of little use to people taking a plane out the next day.

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

#119

Post by codyb »

ta_egdhs wrote: post #110
ilikehurdles wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, that's a fairly easy question to answer.

The rooted pay taxes, provide stability to a neighborhood, and are invested in the upkeep of their properties.

They also tend to be better neighbors than a constant flow of random people who may not care whether they make noise, or disturb others.

I certainly would be incredibly peeved if I paid a million dollars for a unit and then the person down the hall turned their apartment into a miniature hotel and had random people coming in and out at all times of the day that I'd never seen before.

Beyond that, these units drive up rental prices, and avoid luxury taxes which can benefit locals to enrich the owners of AirBnB.

Post reply on HN