Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DIY B&B

washingtonmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 200 posts

Re: DIY B&B

#31

Post by brigade »

tgrass wrote: post #20
blaines wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to take my couch offline because my HOA threatened to fine me. No more visitors, no more foreign friends. :( It seems the first wave of enforcement has come from HOAs, I've heard of various people having to remove their listing for that reason. [1] Now it appears, according to the article above, municipal authorities are pushing back. Could this be a result of lobbying from hotels? Vacation rentals is not a new…

HOAs are a whole different beast when it comes to the discussion of markets and property rights. You choose to join an HOA.

Not really, for most areas you cannot not join an HOA when you purchase a house, and there are no houses that are not covered by an HOA in said area.

Re: DIY B&B

#32

Post by jtbigwoo »

Despite the touching stories about financial ruin, the government has a legitimate interest in making sure B&B's are minimally safe and operate without disturbing neighbors. All of these "It's my property!" arguments are supremely disingenuous.

Re: DIY B&B

#33

Post by tgrass »

cletus wrote: post #26

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the negative reaction to this here. The HN demographic is presumably tilted towards young men. What those criticisms seem to be neglecting is that those--particularly for apartment buildings--these temporary visitors impact beyond just you. In Australia, for example, one useful metric used by people when assessing apartment buildings to buy in is to look at the ratio of owner-occup…

I am a father, and I rent. Are my rights less (as proxied by my landlord) than my neighbor who owns an underwater house?

[EDIT] When I go down to the polling station on election day, I assure you my rights are equal.

Re: DIY B&B

#34

Post by blaines »

sliverstorm wrote: post #15
blaines wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to take my couch offline because my HOA threatened to fine me. No more visitors, no more foreign friends. :( It seems the first wave of enforcement has come from HOAs, I've heard of various people having to remove their listing for that reason. [1] Now it appears, according to the article above, municipal authorities are pushing back. Could this be a result of lobbying from hotels? Vacation rentals is not a new…

... telling me who I can or can not have over to stay. They aren't telling you who you can or can not have over, they are prohibiting you from having temporary guests that pay. Why? Well, an establishment that houses temporary guests traditionally has to answer to health & safety codes and regulations. Under-the-radar AirBnB rentals circumvent that system. You'd probably get similar kickback if you tried running an i…

I received an email with my airbnb listing and couchsurfing listing attached saying I can't keep either online otherwise I'll get a fine.

It wasn't my main source of income, and I'm not running a business. In fact, I'd rather not have someone on my couch every day, I like my space. I'm saying it should be my choice to have a kid from Massachusetts, a student from Spain, or a grandmother from South Carolina, or my family stay.

edit: http://cookitfor.us/

Re: DIY B&B

#35

Post by untog »

dmk23 wrote: post #12

This is a classic example of anti-competitive market fixing, masquerading as a "regulation to protect consumers" or somesuch. There is no legitimate justification to infringe on a contract between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but to actually fight these crackdowns you have to spend lots of $$$ on local political campaigns in every municipality. Easier said than done. Unless that massive lobbying investment (…

There is no legitimate justification to infringe on a contract between a willing buyer and a willing seller

Devils advocate: are food standards also a terrible imposition? The government insists on coming around to all the restaurants in the city and inspecting them to make sure that no-one will be poisoned or killed by the food they eat. How dare they stand in between a willing buyer and seller. Right? Right?

Food standards, restaurant inspections, building codes, health and safety codes... the list goes on. Are they all illegitimate attempts to stand between a willing buyer and seller?

Re: DIY B&B

#36

Post by essayist »

dmk23 wrote: post #12

This is a classic example of anti-competitive market fixing, masquerading as a "regulation to protect consumers" or somesuch. There is no legitimate justification to infringe on a contract between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but to actually fight these crackdowns you have to spend lots of $$$ on local political campaigns in every municipality. Easier said than done. Unless that massive lobbying investment (…

Restaurant health codes do exactly that. It seems to me that there are relatively few "black market" or "under the table" restaurants. (Yes, there are food trucks, but it's a recent and relatively smallscale phenomenon.)

Of course, this doesn't make health codes good, necessarily.

But what I'm more interested in - what kinds of prohibitions lead to speakeasies/organized crime, and what don't, particuarly on the scale of the Prohibition, with Al Capone, Elliot Ness, etc. ??

Re: DIY B&B

#37

Post by scarmig »

derleth wrote: post #29
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

Just about every year for as long as I can remember, my family has taken a summer vacation at a beach about 300 miles away. We always stay in a hotel. Over time, the beach has gotten tacky. Big billboards. Lots of nightlife. Amusement park rides. All kinds of things that reek of Las Vegas, but not so much a relaxing family vacation. So this year we decided to try something different. I got onto VRBO online and picked…

> people own their stuff and they're damn well liable to do what they want to with it Morally true, perhaps, but not legally the case. It's another example of how laws are extremely difficult to enforce if they go against the public morality; an extreme example was how difficult it was to outlaw dueling until the fashion finally turned against the practice. A more modern example is how most people really want laws ag…

I'd argue not even morally true. I support drug legalization, but I definitely want legal protections against someone else setting up a meth lab in the condo next to me. Externalities nearly always exist, and market imperfection makes it impossible to contract them away.

It's a genuinely thorny issue in this case, though. On the one hand, you can easily imagine mechanisms where allowing widespread commercial short term tenancy in your building would increase crime rates and put your own self and property at risk. At the same time, it's abhorrent to me to imagine my condo building saying that I can't have non-paying visitors over several nights per week, which would likely have identical effects.

So where does the line fall?

Re: DIY B&B

#38

Post by larrys »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #11

Just about every year for as long as I can remember, my family has taken a summer vacation at a beach about 300 miles away. We always stay in a hotel. Over time, the beach has gotten tacky. Big billboards. Lots of nightlife. Amusement park rides. All kinds of things that reek of Las Vegas, but not so much a relaxing family vacation. So this year we decided to try something different. I got onto VRBO online and picked…

"but this is a done deal: people own their stuff and they're damn well liable to do what they want to with it."

Not speaking specifically about your situation and experience which was positive for you but the laws also have other purposes. For example when you live in certain residential neighborhoods you're not expecting to have transient population.

Many communities restrict single family homes to "1 family" and many condo buildings restrict rentals to "1 lease per year" to prevent occupancy by people who presumably create a different atmosphere than regulars.

"the owner was magnificent, and I'm not about to share where it was!"

I love the old school way of thought. (Reminds me of not wanting to share a good mechanic or babysitter for fear that they won't be available when needed for ones own work!)

Re: DIY B&B

#39

Post by jtbigwoo »

olefoo wrote: post #19
btipling wrote: post #4

These laws seems to curb an efficient market process, which I don't like if true. Also I think the government loses out on special taxes from Hotel business, but maybe those taxes could also be collected from these B&B type operations? Hotels have no business using the law to fight a competitive threat, in my opinion anyway. Does not seem to make sense to me.

This looks like a classic example of regulatory capture, where the regulator becomes an effective barrier to new entrants to the market. Factor in the concentrated nature of the hotel industry (fewer of them, more at stake) and you can see why they are motivated and able to put pressure on the bureaucracy. The whole thing does strike me as morally irresponsible in that a city with a persistent and undealt with homele…

The whole thing does strike me as morally irresponsible in that a city with a persistent and undealt with homeless problem should not be limiting the availability of housing units until the blatant market failure has been dealt with.

Red herring. These people are not inviting the homeless into their homes. They are operating a hotel/B&B without following any registration, safety, health, or tax rules.

Re: DIY B&B

#40

Post by sp332 »

tgrass wrote: post #33
cletus wrote: post #26

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the negative reaction to this here. The HN demographic is presumably tilted towards young men. What those criticisms seem to be neglecting is that those--particularly for apartment buildings--these temporary visitors impact beyond just you. In Australia, for example, one useful metric used by people when assessing apartment buildings to buy in is to look at the ratio of owner-occup…

I am a father, and I rent. Are my rights less (as proxied by my landlord) than my neighbor who owns an underwater house? [EDIT] When I go down to the polling station on election day, I assure you my rights are equal.

edit OK I misunderstood. skip this post :)

Yes, of course. Starting with the obvious, your landlord could just throw you out. Your agreement almost certainly prevents you from making significant changes to the structure of the building. You can't sell the property. Your rights are much, much less than your neighbor.

Post reply on HN