11–20 of 28 posts
I think one of the biggest advantages of the proposed laws is freeing up rent controlled units that are currently be hoarded for Airbnb and not being used as primary residences.
I think one of the biggest advantages of the proposed laws is freeing up rent controlled units that are currently be hoarded for Airbnb and not being used as primary residences.
That seems like a dubious benefit to me. So we pass all these regulations (rent control) that end up leading to inadequate market supply. The solution to this is to... pass laws leading to inadequate market supply in temporary lodging?
I don't know how AirBnB works in San Francisco, but in other countries it IS mostly a tax-evading hotel alternative, and renting out primary residences is very, very rare. I'm looking for rentals in a South American city, and there are quite a few owners with 10+ properties (more the norm than the exception), and I actually prefer those (I've had bad experiences with sloppy hosts, professional hosts haven't let me do…
For renting of rooms or couches (vs. renting whole apartments), a much larger percentage are people renting out parts of their own living space, so you stay with the resident and usually meet them or even hang out with them, kinda "couchsurfing for money". Though there are some such listings (esp. in NYC) where a shared rental is shared with other AirBnB renters, not with the permanent resident, and I definitely avoid those.
Can anyone explain why VRBO, which has been in operation for 15 years, and explicitly focuses on renting out 2nd homes, has not faced the backlash and scrutiny that AirBnB has? Is it just that they have not done enough volume to get the regulators' attention?
Because reading about the proposed rules in this article, VRBO rentals seem like they would violate at least one of them:
> -Requiring hosts to only rent out their primary residence and setting guidelines on how many days they must occupy the unit each year (currently 275 days)
I couldn't imagine sitting in solid wooden chairs for 8 hours a day! The pain would be unbearable.
> -Limiting those under rent control provisions to not make more from home-sharing than their rent (some people are not happy about this one) Hah. Talk about entitled. Complaining they cant rent for market rates while living at below market rates. Not surprising though coming from people who illegally rent out others property.
Anyone else look at the seats in the top picture and think "back trouble". I couldn't imagine sitting in solid wooden chairs for 8 hours a day! The pain would be unbearable.
> -Limiting those under rent control provisions to not make more from home-sharing than their rent (some people are not happy about this one) Hah. Talk about entitled. Complaining they cant rent for market rates while living at below market rates. Not surprising though coming from people who illegally rent out others property.
If they have a rent-controlled apartment, and they're subletting it, where do they live? And if they're getting "market rates" (which I doubt), and still qualify for a rent-controlled apartment, then I say let them keep the money.
Then the landlord can only increase rent (as a general rule) by about 1% per year.
So there are people living in 4 bedroom homes in the middle of the best parts of the Mission paying $1000 a month in rent where market rate would be between $6000-8000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they have a rent-controlled apartment, and they're subletting it, where do they live? And if they're getting "market rates" (which I doubt), and still qualify for a rent-controlled apartment, then I say let them keep the money.
My understanding is you don't "qualify" for rent control in SF. You automatically get it when you move into a building built before 1979. Then the landlord can only increase rent (as a general rule) by about 1% per year. So there are people living in 4 bedroom homes in the middle of the best parts of the Mission paying $1000 a month in rent where market rate would be between $6000-8000.