I Have Read Prop F • Hacker News Board

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#11

Post by abalone » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:38 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #7

Wow: This is where it’s clear the authors overreached and created a toxic spill waiting to happen. If the City finds you did indeed host someone or assisted someone else as such, even for one night, then the City can take action against you. But then it gets absolutely bonkers. If you didn’t host anyone, or it was just your Aunt Rose visiting for the weekend, then your cranky neighbor can still sue you anyway, and th…

It's a bit overblown. Civil lawsuits cost money to prosecute, so they're unlikely to be pursued unless there's a good chance of winning.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#12

Post by on_ » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

I Have Read this Medium Post.

The author makes a great case against Prop F, prop F seems like a totally shitty law and isn't going to fix the housing problem. It sounds like that isn't what the law is about anyway, but there is a great way to fix the housing problem. The argument he seems to allude to in his notes, is that people seem to choose sides based on their sentiment surrounding the current resedential/housing market.

In economics there are 2 forces at the heart of most problems. These are called "supply" and "demand" and they govern price. SF has not been keeping up with it's infrastructure, is a decade behind in new construction, and building new resedential properties will take ~5-10 years to complete. They are not actively building properties that will sufficiently meet demand even now. So this won't go away.

Unfortunately, people who paid a lot for houses have a vested interest in not raising supply, and the amount of regulation surrounding new construction creates massive amounts of friction. It will be interesting to see how this problem get's solved. I agree with the author though:

It is not going to be Prop F.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#13

Post by cuckcuckspruce » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #11

Mz wrote: post #7

Wow: This is where it’s clear the authors overreached and created a toxic spill waiting to happen. If the City finds you did indeed host someone or assisted someone else as such, even for one night, then the City can take action against you. But then it gets absolutely bonkers. If you didn’t host anyone, or it was just your Aunt Rose visiting for the weekend, then your cranky neighbor can still sue you anyway, and th…

It's a bit overblown. Civil lawsuits cost money to prosecute, so they're unlikely to be pursued unless there's a good chance of winning.

Have you ever lived in a community with an HOA? Some of the people there take finding violations, infractions, and actionable offenses as their second job, and will not hesitate to sue you just because. So enabling these people by requiring the city to help them sue is like dumping a tanker full of kerosene on a forest fire.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#14

Post by cheepin » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #6

This is a really laudable write-up, whether or not you agree with prop F. The problem of "sounds good in principle" propositions that are terribly or deceptively drafted is one that makes every California election a minefield.

That's why a strangely sound election strategy is to just vote no on every proposition. Most of them have heavy corporate sponsorship and are written to deceive the public.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#15

Post by Mz » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #11

Mz wrote: post #7

Wow: This is where it’s clear the authors overreached and created a toxic spill waiting to happen. If the City finds you did indeed host someone or assisted someone else as such, even for one night, then the City can take action against you. But then it gets absolutely bonkers. If you didn’t host anyone, or it was just your Aunt Rose visiting for the weekend, then your cranky neighbor can still sue you anyway, and th…

It's a bit overblown. Civil lawsuits cost money to prosecute, so they're unlikely to be pursued unless there's a good chance of winning.

I wasn't really thinking of the "you could get sued" angle so much as the "you could get sued BECAUSE you let your Aunt visit for the weekend" angle. It sounds like the law basically outlaws having family come visit, among other things. It sounds just fucking crazy to me.

Though I don't live in SF and likely never will, so I guess if SF wants to get even crazier than it already is, it can. I have no power to vote in city level stuff in SF.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#16

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #5

TranquilMarmot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you say you are anti-airbnb? Just curious if it's their business practices, renters themselves, or what. I've only had positive experiences with airbnb.

i'm anti-airbnb. i prefer to stay in hotels or professionally managed vacation rental units. for example, there's absolutely ZERO chance a hotel will cancel your room on you 12 hours before you show up in europe.

Not in Europe, but I've had it happen twice in the US. Once in Dallas, once in Avalon on Catalina Island. (That one was, "Um, sorry, we only have you booked for one night, and we don't have any openings for the second night.")

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#17

Post by morgante » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #5

TranquilMarmot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you say you are anti-airbnb? Just curious if it's their business practices, renters themselves, or what. I've only had positive experiences with airbnb.

i'm anti-airbnb. i prefer to stay in hotels or professionally managed vacation rental units. for example, there's absolutely ZERO chance a hotel will cancel your room on you 12 hours before you show up in europe.

It sounds like you personally prefer not to stay in an AirBnB. That's fine. I likewise prefer hotels to AirBnBs.

But why are you anti-airbnb?

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#18

Post by pbreit » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:50 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #8

Marazan wrote: post #2

If you had to divide the world into people who are pro or anti airbnb then I am anti-airbnb. But prop F is horrible beyond belief.

I can't even possibly fathom any reason to be either pro or anti airbnb. It's like being pro- or anti- fuchsia, to me. Could you explain why you don't like airbnb? Did the CEO kick you in the puppies, or something?

It's more like being pro or con U2 or bee stings. How could you not have an opinion?

Personally, I think AirBnB has not done a very good job helping communities figure out what the best situation should be. Many/most leases and HOAs forbid short-term leases for very good reason and yet AirBnB turns an eye. And for people who own their residences, many areas are zoned non-commercial, again for very good reasons, and AirBnB turns an eye. Prop F looks terrible but if it somehow manages to pass, AirBnB has no one to blame but itself for not participating constructively in a reasonable solution.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#19

Post by ikeboy » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:52 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #15

abalone wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit overblown. Civil lawsuits cost money to prosecute, so they're unlikely to be pursued unless there's a good chance of winning.

I wasn't really thinking of the "you could get sued" angle so much as the "you could get sued BECAUSE you let your Aunt visit for the weekend " angle. It sounds like the law basically outlaws having family come visit, among other things. It sounds just fucking crazy to me. Though I don't live in SF and likely never will, so I guess if SF wants to get even crazier than it already is, it can. I have no power to vote in…

It looks like it only outlaws paid rentals. I don't see anything saying otherwise, the aunt line is supposed to be something that is legal, but can be misinterpreted.

Re: I Have Read Prop F

#20

Post by pbreit » Fri, Sep 25, 2015, 9:53 PM UTC

AirBnB needs to step up and suggest what it thinks are some of the right ways to handle this. The fact is, many/most leases and HOAs forbid short term rentals, and for good reasons. As well, many areas are zoned non-commercial, again for good reasons.

But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it?

What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws. Many jurisdictions have BnB laws and AirBnBs obviously compare much more closely to BnBs. BnBs typically have lighter regulation, different taxes, are frequently in residential areas, etc.