111–120 of 182 posts
Feasibility aside, the only problem I see is it'd create a literal underclass—as opposed to the proverbial one that exists now as a result of absurd rent prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true but in most cases it doesn't matter because your next best alternative is not changed. If you have owned a home for 10 years and want to buy a new home in another area, you will still want to sell your home. If you just moved to CA and want to own a home, you will still want to buy despite prop 13.
> If you have owned a home for 10 years and want to buy a new home in another area, you will still want to sell your home. Actually, as an outsider looking in, the incentives seem set up such that you'd be far more inclined to rent your existing home than sell it.
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.
Exploitation of marginal utility is fundamentally disconcerting, and it should be -- as tech people, we could think of it as being paid for time spent in a chair, or lines of code. It exploits an inefficiency which exists because of an absolute measurement that mis-assesses the situation. In the case of housing, at the basic level, we pay a monthly rate in order to have a place to sleep (and maybe live & eat). But em…
I do not mean to say that having a permanent traditional life is less desirable to some people. I simply think that the laws of our land should respect freedom of choice and thus not bias any particular lifestyle. I think it is especially egregious to have laws telling people what they can and cannot do with their own home in a manner that has no tangible effect on their neighbors. I find it dubious (and empirically unsupported) that the presence of airbnb guests has any measurable effect on any neighborhood.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But people certainly should have some degree of autonomy when it comes to their personal property. The question is, what is it? That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions. > What I never understood is why short term rental regulations aren't modeled more closely off BnB laws than hotel laws. Part of the whole kerfuffle is because AirBnB was encouraging people to break the laws that actuall…
> That is why we elect people. To answer these kinds of hard questions. In California, its arguable that the premise of the model of government we have (as articulated in the State Constitution) is more that we elect people to exercise legislative power in the regular case not because we have other things to do on a day-to-day basis, but that the people reserve superceding legislative powers of initiative and referen…
Similarly, a private right of action is meant to deal with situations when the city isn't willing to act. The article makes valid points about the downsides of this, but it's also an accountability mechanism. Should it apply in this case? Seems like a good question for the voters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It all comes back to Proposition 13, which crippled local governments.
Imagine how many people who've owned their homes for years would be forced to sell and move elsewhere in San Francisco if prop 13 were repealed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have owned a home for 10 years and want to buy a new home in another area, you will still want to sell your home. Actually, as an outsider looking in, the incentives seem set up such that you'd be far more inclined to rent your existing home than sell it.
Why would you want to be a landlord in SF? Even if its not rent controlled, a bad tenant is going to be a nightmare to get rid of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the burden of short-term visitors? I've heard that said before, but I've never heard any actual examples of problems that occur from short-term visitors that aren't present with long-term residents.
Bedbugs are one of the big ones that I have heard reported where landlords had to pump a lot of money in. The risk obviously goes up linearly with the number of unique visitors. A very genuine problem when one tenant of a multi-unit decides to do AirBnB. As for detached dwellings? If you're hosting out of country people, how do I, as your neighbor, prosecute them if they damage my property (bust a fence, hit my car,…
I'm not sure I follow your comment about detached dwellings and foreign visitors. The biggest issue will be identifying who harmed your property which will be significantly easier if your neighbor used Airbnb as their identification will be on file. Whereas if they just drove by and damaged your property or stayed at your neighbors house through a less formal rental system that will never be as well regulated (Craigslist, local word of mouth, etc.) or a hotel a mile away then it would be much harder to track them down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It all comes back to Proposition 13, which crippled local governments.
Imagine how many people who've owned their homes for years would be forced to sell and move elsewhere in San Francisco if prop 13 were repealed.
Instead of capping the tax, we should cap the amount of the tax that actually has to be paid in a year in which the property does not change hands. That number could be limited according to the Prop. 13 formula; the city or county would receive a lien for the difference, that lien not becoming due until the property does change hands.
This wouldn't change anyone's cash flow until the property is sold, at which time the city or county would receive the unpaid amount out of the sale. The unpaid amount will be a fraction of the amount by which the property appreciated (or if its value fell, the unpaid amount will be zero), so this will be relatively painless.
I've read that this has been done somewhere, though I don't recall where. It's clearly possible. No one is forced to sell, and the localities still get their tax money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> can't even possibly fathom any reason to be either pro or anti airbnb. How about--because I find the serfitude economy ineffective outside areas that are already well-served through other mechanisms. Most of these middlemen are actively interfering in the most profitable cities and areas while ignoring those places where they would actively be useful because they are less profitable. People would find AirBnB, Uber,…
As for the claim that "these companies" are "pushing all of the risks onto individuals", I would cite the $1,000,000 insurance policy that Airbnb provides the host to take the risk off of them: https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Proposition 13 didn't do that; the various governments who petulantly refused to adapt their tax regimes to the Prop 13 limits did. The bizarre incentives created by almost 40 years of attempting to strong-arm voters into giving power back to legislatures could be fixed by legislatures without doing anything to Prop 13.
What exactly should they do?
There are options besides property tax for raising tax revenue. City-level local income tax is the first thing that comes to mind.