S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#2I still think it is crazy that Airbnb has an evaluation of $10 Billion, when in its most active markets it is against the law.
If the penalties come to pass, which they probably won't, I wonder how it will actually affect usage.
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#3We changed the url from [1]. Submitters: please double-check what you post for links to more original sources.
1. http://gigaom.com/2014/04/30/a-reward-for-turning-in-airbnb-...
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#4I still think it is crazy that Airbnb has an evaluation of $10 Billion, when in its most active markets it is against the law. If the penalties come to pass, which they probably won't, I wonder how it will actually affect usage.
The investors who are valuing AirBnB so highly are the same people with access to lobbyists and the sort of money that talks loud enough for government officials to hear. I doubt they'd be investing so heavily if they didn't believe they could game the system (for better or for worse).
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#5I predict this will make it onto the ballot easily and give it a 60% chance of passage.
EDIT: Downvoters, a prediction is not the same thing as an endorsement.
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#6I hope SROs in San Francisco get as much administrative attention as short term rentals. Decade old legislation severely hindering the development of downtown SF.
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#7We changed the url from [1]. Submitters: please double-check what you post for links to more original sources. 1. http://gigaom.com/2014/04/30/a-reward-for-turning-in-airbnb-...
I submitted this yesterday under the current URL, so that probably would have failed. I think a lot of people submit alternate URLs for articles that failed to get traction due to bad timing or whatever.
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#8We changed the url from [1]. Submitters: please double-check what you post for links to more original sources. 1. http://gigaom.com/2014/04/30/a-reward-for-turning-in-airbnb-...
I submitted this yesterday under the current URL, so that probably would have failed. I think a lot of people submit alternate URLs for articles that failed to get traction due to bad timing or whatever.
Actually, I submitted because I liked how it was summarized and linked to the new york story. Original sources don't seem to be valued by folks up voting.
[edit] can moderators change the submitter to the person who originally submitted this article?
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I submitted this yesterday under the current URL, so that probably would have failed. I think a lot of people submit alternate URLs for articles that failed to get traction due to bad timing or whatever.
Actually, I submitted because I liked how it was summarized and linked to the new york story. Original sources don't seem to be valued by folks up voting. [edit] can moderators change the submitter to the person who originally submitted this article?
Haha. Don't worry about it. I was just pointing out why someone might not have submitted the original.
(One of these days I might be able to trade in my karma points for the really big stuffed animal, but for now, it's just mustache combs...)
Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals
#10I still think it is crazy that Airbnb has an evaluation of $10 Billion, when in its most active markets it is against the law. If the penalties come to pass, which they probably won't, I wonder how it will actually affect usage.
The investors who are valuing AirBnB so highly are the same people with access to lobbyists and the sort of money that talks loud enough for government officials to hear. I doubt they'd be investing so heavily if they didn't believe they could game the system (for better or for worse).
You're giving VCs and institutional investors way too much credit. The amount of educated people who buy things based largely on the fact they are popular and growing is still pretty large, especially in a frothy environment like this one. They're more interested in getting out when it looks like growth is over than fighting the legal system to ensure a business can stay in operation.