161–170 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "spare" housing. People who buy apartments for use with AirBnB are reducing the housing stock available to people who want long term rents or to buy to live.
and this is wrong exactly why? My buying groceries reduces groceries available to other people.
Can't help but think of the obvious time and time again with the faux-sharing economy. Sharing is a pathetic use of neural linguistics, you're not sharing, your not doing anyone a kindness, you're making money and you're providing a service. Uber and Airbnb will be regulated legislative or through unions. Ask yourself just wtf are cabs so much more inefficient than Uber and hotels more expensive then Airbnb? Few driv…
Why should they be different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do we want to go down the externalities rabbit hole? Do we tax people who cannot knowingly fiscally responsibly afford to have kids more because their kids cause tax externalities that people who don't have kids have to bear (school, food, health subsidies, quality of life impact, etc.)?
We absolutely should tax the shit out of the cretins spawning more 'arrows for god' or parents so broken in the head that they push out 5 kids because they are chasing a specific gender.
Comments here need to be both civil and substantive. Heated rhetoric is neither, so it lowers the signal/noise ratio at both ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a specious argument and AirBNB is gonna get spanked hard on that one. Also, the CDA Safe Harbor never intended to shield service providers that receive direct monetary benefit from user content itself.
Don't all sites derive a monetary benefit from the content - be it page view ads or valuation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. That's why I said "this is a case". Maybe it's a problem for a certain set of people and maybe it isn't. You have to listen to them.
This is the fallacy I am objecting to. If the majority of the people want to abolish the First Amendment in order to silence hate speech, the government absolutely should not listen the them. Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are discussed from various angles in the Federalist Papers and I believe were considered carefully when structuring the American government (in order to prevent them).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not "spare" housing. People who buy apartments for use with AirBnB are reducing the housing stock available to people who want long term rents or to buy to live.
and this is wrong exactly why? My buying groceries reduces groceries available to other people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the fallacy I am objecting to. If the majority of the people want to abolish the First Amendment in order to silence hate speech, the government absolutely should not listen the them. Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are discussed from various angles in the Federalist Papers and I believe were considered carefully when structuring the American government (in order to prevent them).
Last I checked, the ability to rent out your house wasn't a human right or a constitutional one. Are you against every kind of property zoning?
* https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-und...
There seems to be a common misconception about zoning laws. Zoning laws fall under city planning where placement of certain types of buildings in organized locations leads to a more efficient city. These laws typically address traffic flow, utilities, etc.
So to forward the AirBnB context, the city zones an area as residential, a developer builds residences, and a private owner (again AirBnB context) purchases the property. From there I would contest that the city should have limited (if any) ability to limit or dictate how the now private owner choses to "use and dispose" of their personal property. Renting of the property does not violate the residential zoning...this would be as opposed to the owner tearing down their home to build an office sky scraper.
But if a private owner buys a house, they should be able to choose how to use that house. And again, this is off topic from the original thing I objected to: whether or not your neighbors should be able to dictate through government how you can/should use/dispose of your personal property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and this is wrong exactly why? My buying groceries reduces groceries available to other people.
Bad analogy. If the grocery store runs out of celery it doesn't have anywhere near the impact on your life as not being able to find a home reasonably close to other important things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad analogy. If the grocery store runs out of celery it doesn't have anywhere near the impact on your life as not being able to find a home reasonably close to other important things.
Perfectly good analogy. Not living in the exact place you want does not cause unreasonable suffering ("nearest starbucks is 2 miles away, oh horrors" ?), so it should be subject to market forces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But mostly the city wants to ensure they get paid and keep the lodging industry off their backs. Hotels pay occupancy taxes and want AirBnBs to have that encumbrance. I have a property in an area that has it all figured out and I had to get it certified by an inspector, pay some fees, and submit occupancy taxes. Most skirt the laws. Chicago did it right in my opinion by requiring AirBnB to manage and submit the taxes…
The city is facing huge pressure from local residents because the price of housing has gone up dramatically in the past few years. Property owners taking rental properties off the market to turn them into unlicensed full-time hotels through Airbnb further reduces housing stock, in addition to forcing a bunch of negative externalities onto neighbors who have little recourse. Most local residents who aren’t themselves…
My point was - if the city can get their $ from their policies they will enable airbnbs like Chicago recently did.
At the same time - Airbnb is just one small piece of the puzzle for the rise in housing prices. I don't understand why some people think they are entitled to live in an area in demand?
If someone wants to start scooping up real estate and homeowners are selling at higher prices, comps go up, everyone's values go up along with property taxes. That's how it works.
Now - homeowners whose values go up should be enraged about property tax increases. The city's budget shouldn't vary much from year to year, but if home prices go up substantially they get more property tax revenue. Why? And then if they go down - they don't help you out.