S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals • Hacker News Board

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#41

Post by midas007 » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

geuis wrote: post #20

As a SF resident, I'm opposed to any regulation at all. I'm a long term renter (same house, 7 years) and my lease prevents subletting. That's exactly where the responsibility and regulation should lie, at the feet of the home owner. If I own a piece of property or have a lease that allows it, then I should have the free choice to do with that property what I want in regards to something like Airbnb. In my case, the o…

Yes. \o/

Anything less is control-freak, incumbent cronyism with a mafia protection fee.

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#42

Post by rguzman » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:03 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #34

harryh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an aside but it's almost all regulation that limits the supply of housing in SF. There is essentially no lack of land due to our technical ability to stack things vertically.

Regulation isn't really the limit there. Regulation is the mechanism that implements the limit. The limit comes from the combined views of the citizenry about what sort of place they'd like their city to be.

I live in SF and I feel something different. The regulations are consistent with versions of SF that most of its citizenry would not like (e.g. like Malibu).

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#43

Post by Crito » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:03 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #5

I 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.

The downvotes were probably more about the worth of your comment. Your opinion and some off the cuff percentage aren't really interesting without some sort of accompanying justification or analysis. Why do you think it will make it to the ballot easily, and why specifically 60% odds of passing?

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#44

Post by rguzman » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:06 PM UTC

dougmccune wrote: post #25

fleitz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major drivers of housing supply / demand in SF are rent control and permitting, not short term rentals. Exactly, how much of the city do you think AirBNB is renting out?

A random search on AirBnB for a date in December shows me about 900 "Entire Place" rentals available. I'm not saying that all those would definitely be long-term rentals in the city, but I have a hard time believing that there are about a thousand empty apartments/houses that would otherwise just be sitting empty were there not the lucrative AirBnB market.

I don't know about those specific 900 listings on airbnb, but IIRC SF has an ~8% vacancy rate which tens of thousands of housing units.

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#45

Post by emef » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:08 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #35

dougmccune wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city. You could make the argument that increasing tourism, or increasing the available footprint of where tourists stay (ie not just downtown where all the hotels are) is beneficial. I would actually love to see legit bed and breakfasts open i…

> It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city. By lowering the supply of long-term rentals, it would drive the cost up, which would incentivize the production of more long-term housing.

Incentive is not the problem with more housing... there is presently a huge demand for housing.

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#46

Post by nerfhammer » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #35

dougmccune wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city. You could make the argument that increasing tourism, or increasing the available footprint of where tourists stay (ie not just downtown where all the hotels are) is beneficial. I would actually love to see legit bed and breakfasts open i…

> It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city. By lowering the supply of long-term rentals, it would drive the cost up, which would incentivize the production of more long-term housing.

production of more long-term housing is already hugely incentivized but severely limited due to anti-development regulations and activism

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#47

Post by rwallace » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:16 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #34

harryh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an aside but it's almost all regulation that limits the supply of housing in SF. There is essentially no lack of land due to our technical ability to stack things vertically.

Regulation isn't really the limit there. Regulation is the mechanism that implements the limit. The limit comes from the combined views of the citizenry about what sort of place they'd like their city to be.

Is it really the combined views of the citizenry? Or is it primarily the views of a minority of wealthy landowners who have political influence more proportional to their wealth than their numbers?

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#48

Post by baddox » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:17 PM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #46

baddox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city. By lowering the supply of long-term rentals, it would drive the cost up, which would incentivize the production of more long-term housing.

production of more long-term housing is already hugely incentivized but severely limited due to anti-development regulations and activism

I agree.

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#49

Post by baddox » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:17 PM UTC

emef wrote: post #45

baddox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It takes what would otherwise be rental units for SF residents off the market and instead provides them to tourists. So my opinion is that yeah, that hurts the residents of the city. By lowering the supply of long-term rentals, it would drive the cost up, which would incentivize the production of more long-term housing.

Incentive is not the problem with more housing... there is presently a huge demand for housing.

Well, the fact that most useful development is illegal is a massive disincentive.

Re: S.F. ballot measure would severely limit short-term rentals

#50

Post by wdewind » Wed, Apr 30, 2014, 7:19 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #38

wdewind wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I generally favor a less-regulation approach, you're missing the core issue here: short-term rentals have a negative effect on neighborhoods because they change the incentives of the people living the house from those of a neighbor to those of a visitor. This is precisely what zoning regulations are designed to protect. > How far does this line of thinking extend? What about small startups that work out of some…

> short-term rentals have a negative effect on neighborhoods because they change the incentives of the people living the house from those of a neighbor to those of a visitor. So what? People aren't friendly enough to their neighbors? Is this really worth regulating? If there's a specific concern, like tenants not maintaining the property or being too noisy, why not just require tenants to take care of the property an…

As I said below, I had an extremely negative experience having someone in my building renting out their apartment on Airbnb. Of course, sample size of 1.