SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

Post by kofejnik » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:00 AM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #116

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?

Post by kofejnik » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:04 AM UTC

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.

Post by kofejnik » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:06 AM UTC

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?

Post by baddox » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:14 AM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #108

baddox wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by pertymcpert » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

kofejnik wrote: post #123

traek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Because tourists tend to impose negative externalities upon the city Seriously? Cities love tourists, they contribute a lot of $$$ to the economy