231–240 of 276 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe a share of the payment, and a more direct relationship with the security deposit. I was really trying to think of ways it affects me as a landlord and property owner. I really don't care what people do in the property as long as it's legal and causes no damage, but I want to be protected and considered as well. Right now we are just completely cut out of the entire process, and there's little incentive for u…
Responding to w1ntermute below: You're right, and that's what I had toyed with looking into. The problem is I use a boilerplate lease like most landlords - because it's been tested for years in "production" if you will. You take a great risk in making even small modifications to existing language without a lawyer review. Writing all new language is even riskier and considerably more expensive. Since I don't want to s…
That sounds like an excellent idea. You should suggest it to Airbnb (seriously). They have already shown themselves willing to provide legal assistance to users, so they may very well be open to this as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
only if you treat revenue and value as interchangeable. the value of someone having a stable place they can rent and not fear the landlord will kick them out to run a revolving-door hotel he can squeeze the maximum amount of rent out of is immense, whether or not they can afford to pay as much as the collective influx of transients would.
But the argument Airbnb makes is not in favor allowing building landlords to evict tenants and run illegal hotels, nor is it mine. The law should be changed to cover only that case. Not be broadly extended to cover the 87% who rent out their own home[1], to make extra personal money on the side. [1] according to Airbnb, in the article Edited for formatting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That should really depend on the contracts and negotiations between property owners, tenants, etc. Maybe you don't mind living next to that "eyesore" because it's much cheaper and you can afford private schooling for your children. Everything is a cost/benefit, and people may be willing to sacrifice one thing for another, so have a little empathy.
I think you missed the point of "externality": the people affected by the externality are not party to the negotiations. In other words, when I buy the house next to yours, and from one day to the next, decide to use it to store decaying pig shit in the yard, or manufacture high explosives, all of a sudden, you got something really nasty that you did not choose. It's not as if you chose to move next door knowing full…
For example, where I live in Cleveland, there used to be a rule that policeman (and I think most civil servants) had to live inside the city limits to work there. Once they removed the regulation, these workers sold their homes and left. The property value has dropped considerably as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think there has to be a rational argument against AirBnB. You may not think so, but I certainly hope laws are made by rational arguments.
I think I prefer the system where each voter has one vote to spend on whatever they please, without having to justify their desires to others...
Curious, and I haven't heard many comments on this: does this set a precedent that other states are likely to follow, and if so, is this a serious threat to the Airbnb business?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be), then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions? Seems like a logical fallacy to me. How about we let people transact peacefully and deal with the problems on a case-by-case basis instead of lumping everyone under the same law that allows no room for exploration.
> So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be) Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set of promises that lacks the intent necessary to form a contract. > then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions? Yes, u…
That is one definition, but not the only. And I'm sure there are creative ways to enforce contracts without State force--third-party arbitration could be an option, social pressure, etc. Most contract disputes I've been involved with have been resolved without the need for legal action. There are plenty of social dynamics that come into play.
> Enforcement of existing laws, civil and criminal, is done on a case-by-case basis by actual people; even if something creates a civil or criminal cause of action, the party (the prosecutorial authority of the state, in criminal cases) with the cause of action may choose not exercise it, and jury nullification is thing, so, largely, what you call for is the status quo.
This is true, but I don't think it's working. Looking at the current prison population, something is deeply flawed. Are most jurors even aware of jury nullification?
> If you think the specific parameters of the existing law are drawn incorrectly, you probably ought to address your specific problem rather than calling for abstract features that already exist in the current system.
Fair enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled. Indeed. I am seriously arguing against zoning, or rather, against the necessity and wisdom of government (i.e. violent, compulsory) action to solve this problem.
The alternative would be a society not based on the law, but on connections and reputation - real-life examples would be a Brazilian favela, Wikipedia, the Iceland of the Sagas. Not something I'd prefer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their neighbours are more likely to be people there for the long term and with an interest in the community, rather than just renting out their place to people a night at a time. I can see the negative side of AirBnB, though that said I just booked a place in Paris because every central hotel under $300/night appears to be booked for next week.
> Their neighbours are more likely to be people there for the long term and with an interest in the community, rather than just renting out their place to people a night at a time. Of course that is true, but no they can no longer choose to live in places that allow AirBnBing their apartments. Your argument seems more applicable w/r/t contract law. If you don't want those kind of neighbors you can live in places that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled. Indeed. I am seriously arguing against zoning, or rather, against the necessity and wisdom of government (i.e. violent, compulsory) action to solve this problem.
The alternative would be a society not based on the law, but on connections and reputation - real-life examples would be a Brazilian favela, Wikipedia, the Iceland of the Sagas. Not something I'd prefer.