Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

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

#21

Post by lindauer »

enjo wrote: post #14
dougmccune wrote: post #11

As an SF resident, I'd support something that allowed short-term rentals only if the host is present and the host is the owner. Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I find it funny that AirBnB's justification is that their users rely on the money to make ends meet. But at the same time, if you're taking a unit off the legit long-term rental market to put it on the permanent short-term Air…

Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I could see that it might not help, but does it hurt?

Yes. It reduces supply in the long-term housing market by taking a unit that otherwise be permanently occupied and renting it out short-term. I like staying in STR's when I travel, but I think this is a case where some regulation is reasonable. Hotel rates are so much higher than long-term rental rates on a nightly basis that there's a strong market incentive to use your property as an STR rather than LTR.

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

#22

Post by fleitz »

dougmccune wrote: post #11

As an SF resident, I'd support something that allowed short-term rentals only if the host is present and the host is the owner. Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I find it funny that AirBnB's justification is that their users rely on the money to make ends meet. But at the same time, if you're taking a unit off the legit long-term rental market to put it on the permanent short-term Air…

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?

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

#23

Post by tedsanders »

dougmccune wrote: post #11

As an SF resident, I'd support something that allowed short-term rentals only if the host is present and the host is the owner. Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I find it funny that AirBnB's justification is that their users rely on the money to make ends meet. But at the same time, if you're taking a unit off the legit long-term rental market to put it on the permanent short-term Air…

That's a funny point, but consider this: Land (along with regulation) is what limits the supply of housing in SF. If you transform a house to a hotel, then yes, it's true, the supply of housing has fallen. However, at the same time, the supply of hotels has risen. If the world equilibrates, then perhaps a hotel is torn down elsewhere and its land is freed up for housing. So I don't think it's necessarily the case that short-term rentals drive up the price of long-term rentals (but perhaps it is once you acknowledge that hotel rooms have higher density than AirBnB).

Also, it seems like this logic could apply to anything. Oh, you're building a Chipotle so that poor people can eat cheap food and earn money? Well that Chipotle takes up land, driving up rental prices. High rental prices means that people have less money and less of a budget for food. So the justification is: "San Francisco residents are so poor, they need the ability to become drive up prices and become even poorer!" But that seems a bit silly.

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

#24

Post by wdewind »

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…

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 someone's house or apartment? They're doing commercial activity in an unzoned area, so that should be banned too.

The difference is that no one around the startup is going to complain because they aren't impacting their neighborhood negatively.

Short term rentals are decisions you make for your neighborhood without their consent. The feedback mechanism that would replace regulation on Airbnb is unfortunately limited to only the guests who stay, which are not all of the stakeholders affected by any means.

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

#25

Post by dougmccune »

fleitz wrote: post #22
dougmccune wrote: post #11

As an SF resident, I'd support something that allowed short-term rentals only if the host is present and the host is the owner. Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I find it funny that AirBnB's justification is that their users rely on the money to make ends meet. But at the same time, if you're taking a unit off the legit long-term rental market to put it on the permanent short-term Air…

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.

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

#26

Post by breischl »

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…

Coffee shops need a different license to make food to ensure that they have a safe, hygienic food prep area. Hotels are subject to health regulations as well. Hotels are also supposed to collect guest taxes that I'm guessing many (most? all?) AirBnB hosts weren't collecting. ie, they were not playing by the same rules as everyone else, which is anti-competitive.

The neighbors should get a say in whether you're running a hotel out of your house/condo, because there are externalities involved. For example, if the condo next door to you hosts hundreds of people per year they're more likely to get bedbugs, which can require fumigating the entire building. I'm sure we can come up with some more if you try.

Bottom line, certainly some regulations exist for protectionist reasons, but you're wrong in assuming that protectionism is the only reason for regulation. AirBnB and others should be subject to a reasonable level of regulation. It's unfortunate, but that's the cost of living in close quarters with lots of other people.

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

#27

Post by [deleted] »

dougmccune wrote: post #11

As an SF resident, I'd support something that allowed short-term rentals only if the host is present and the host is the owner. Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I find it funny that AirBnB's justification is that their users rely on the money to make ends meet. But at the same time, if you're taking a unit off the legit long-term rental market to put it on the permanent short-term Air…

[deleted]

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

#28

Post by geuis »

wdewind wrote: post #24
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…

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…

I appreciate your point of view, but this is just supposition. As far as I know, there have been no actual studies done related to the effect of independent rentals using the Airbnb model on neighborhoods.

My own opinion is that property owners have the ability to do what they will with that property up to the limits of established laws. This means that with no existing laws to prevent action, those actions are allowable.

Based on that opinion, and unless some studies are done that factually demonstrate negative impacts on neighborhoods, no pre-emptive laws should be passed restricting this activity.

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

#29

Post by btgeekboy »

dougmccune wrote: post #19
alwaysdoit wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the question I have is, should someone be able to do a housing swap? Say, let someone trade use their home in SF for a week in exchange for use of the other party's home in NY? Does that need to be regulated?

I agree that there's a huge grey area in terms of defining what crosses the line. I should be able to let my buddy stay at my place if I'm not here. I also don't have a problem if places that legitimately would have just been empty are rented to tourists (ie I'm traveling for 3 weeks and otherwise would just leave my place empty). The thing that's not OK is when someone realizes they can rent out their place as a per…

Perhaps the solution is that the host must have the property as their primary residence. This implies they spend over half of the year at that property.

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

#30

Post by harryh »

tedsanders wrote: post #23
dougmccune wrote: post #11

As an SF resident, I'd support something that allowed short-term rentals only if the host is present and the host is the owner. Permanent AirBnB units don't help the housing market in the city. I find it funny that AirBnB's justification is that their users rely on the money to make ends meet. But at the same time, if you're taking a unit off the legit long-term rental market to put it on the permanent short-term Air…

That's a funny point, but consider this: Land (along with regulation) is what limits the supply of housing in SF. If you transform a house to a hotel, then yes, it's true, the supply of housing has fallen. However, at the same time, the supply of hotels has risen. If the world equilibrates, then perhaps a hotel is torn down elsewhere and its land is freed up for housing. So I don't think it's necessarily the case tha…

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.
Post reply on HN