91–100 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HOAs make me want to puke. Why did you agree to join anyway?
The HOA for a condo generally covers building maintenance, insurance, and other necessary costs that are shared by all of the units in the complex. Thus, if you buy a condo, you do not have a choice about joining the HOA unless you buy the entire complex (meaning the building and all the units*).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"As proxied BY my landlord" I am speaking of my rights in the community, not to the property. That is, should there be a speed bump on the street, should a WalMart be allowed to build on the condemned lot around the corner.
Then you're moving into tautological territory. Those rights are held by your landlord. If he proxies them to you, then you have them, if he doesn't, you don't.
Discrimination is discrimination. These are public neighborhoods. Protecting one's property value does not make discrimination noble or any less discriminatory.
This is really troubling and sickening. It's your property and you should be able to do as you please with it. What is the value of ownership if what you own is under government and HOA control? Disgusting. The fact that we allow government to get involved in our personal lives at this level should scare everyone. They are telling some of these people that they can't earn money to make-up for the fact that they fell…
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…
You're right that short term renters change the value of a property, but you still have all your work ahead of you to show why it should actually be illegal (having the police come raid people). What you described is handled quite well by regular contracts between tenants/landlords. If a tenant signs a lease where short term rentals aren't allowed and violates it then they can be evicted, lose their deposit, etc. Sim…
There's no question that most leases are done on boilerplate contracts that forbid Airbnb-type arrangements, often by spelling out by name each of the occupants, but at the least almost invariably specifying that the landlord gets reasonable approval over any sublessor. I'm sure there are pinholes to be poked in this point but I think as a general rule of thumb we can stipulate: apartment renters cannot lawfully put their apartments up on Airbnb, and the simplest remedy to them doing so is indeed to evict and then sue them.
But getting back to 'cletus point: focus your attention on those "apartments" we call "condos". If your association contracts are good, there are remedies for Airbnb abuse here too, but they're nowhere nearly as clean as the remedies for apartment renters.
Or, here's another wrinkle: go back to the apartment rental scenario, but stipulate that the landlord doesn't care to assert their right to curb Airbnb abuse. What recourse do the other renters in the building have now? They probably do have some; for instance, they can break their lease. But this is messy.
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…
You're forgetting that this problem is already solved by contract law. Tenants sign agreements not to rent out their units all the time. Home owner's associations often have rules against short-term rentals as well. If you don't like the idea of short-term rentals in your neighborhood or building, choose one protected by one of these types of contracts. In fact, they're so common, you probably already have such prote…
Except that the ease to which people can now rent out an apartment short term has created a situation that was not contemplated by existing laws (or if there were existing laws they were not violated to the extent to make enforcement necessary).
Let's take as an example, spam. The founding fathers of the Internet didn't anticipate that the scholarly people who first used the internet would violate the unwritten rules to not spam. The community was small enough and the members respectful enough that it wasn't even designed into the system (let's assume there could have been a technical way to prevent spam in the original design for a second).
But with the success of the internet and it being opened up to everyone the game changed.
"I'm not convinced short-term rentals are really so harmful"
If you've ever had bad neighbors you will understand why people often want a single family home with lots of land or want to live in an exclusive building.
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…
You're forgetting that this problem is already solved by contract law. Tenants sign agreements not to rent out their units all the time. Home owner's associations often have rules against short-term rentals as well. If you don't like the idea of short-term rentals in your neighborhood or building, choose one protected by one of these types of contracts. In fact, they're so common, you probably already have such prote…
Long-term rentals indicate tenants that are stable enough to at least afford the lease. They are subject to at least some vetting (including background checks) prior to moving in. Short term tenants can be anyone. No background checks are conducted.
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.
and in any case you are not even legally a owner you are a TENANT. before downvoting me, go and look at your deed. find the term "owner" anywhere on it. yes folks, the county has permitted you to enter into an agreement to make improvements on the land and resell that right to others. the county "owns" the land. most first-time home buyers are surprised to find out that they actually are only considered tenants
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does gender have to do with opinions about whether someone should be able to rent out a room in a building they own? Renters don't tend to look after properties. No, that's why it's called rent and they have property managers or landlords who have that responsibility. That said, I've been in my rented place for 12yrs and take good care of it, as do other tenants in our building. Myth busted. How would I feel if…
they don't "own" the property and the word "owner" does not appear on anyone's deed (don't believe me? go read your own) you are a tenant on the land, and your deed says this. the county is the owner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They aren't telling you who you can or can not have over, they are prohibiting you from having temporary guests that pay. Right. Now try to get the average person to care about the distinction.
Guest stays free = okay. Guest pays you = not okay. The average person can understand that. In fact, most people do. The "benefits" of AirBNB are usually lost on the average person, who cannot understand why someone would rent out their house directly to total strangers.
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…
Here's the real issue: So many people say this industry needs regulation. I don't necessarily agree; I lean Libertarian and tend to think the market will take care of itself. I have an incentive to make my guests super happy because I know they will write bad reviews and my days making extra money via Airbnb will be over if I don't treat them well.
Having said that, even if you do agree that the industry needs regulation, this isn't regulation! This is heavy-handed making an entrepreneurial venture illegal because of vested interests who are threatened by said entrepreneurial venture. As an entrepreneur and someone who's in favor of eliminating middlemen in general, I'm against this form of regulation.
Airbnb issues 1099's to its customers, so I do pay taxes on the money I make from it. If the city wants me to get a license and inspections, I might also be okay with that. But I'm firmly against making this illegal, no matter what strawmen others might throw up. (Heck, there is a "Hotel Hell" show coming out in August here in the U.S. featuring Gordon Ramsay screaming at hotel owners who have cockroaches and bedbugs. I've certainly never had that sort of experience at an Airbnb rental.)
As citizens, we have the right to make our own decisions. As a citizen and a voter, I hope we can start a campaign much like we did against SOPA and PIPA to help make sure our voices are heard. I'm sure these cities have heard plenty from hotels. Now it's our turn.