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

Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

cntraveler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 332 posts

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#281

Post by cdavid »

pjc50 wrote: post #77
pc86 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the most obvious of which is "build more [high-density] housing."

I'm generally in favour of this, but "build more tall buildings in a World Heritage Site to satisfy the temporary demand of tourists" isn't going to be popular. Japan of course is already full of high-density housing. (Edinburgh is building housing, but lots of it is suburban low-density)

Japanese cities are actually not especially high density. For example, Tokyo's density is lower than Queens.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#282

Post by Angostura »

xapata wrote: post #143
Sangermaine wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Step outside of theoretical economic thought experiments and try living in a formerly quiet neighborhood or building suddenly experiencing an influx of loud drunk littering assholes. Residential areas are desired as residential areas for a reason. I live in NYC and sure as hell don't want to live around Times Squ…

The correct way to handle those problems is to enforce noise and litter regulations. If your owner-neighbor is rowdy, it's no different than if their guests are rowdy.

And the fact that you don't see your neighbours and that the schools suddenly have a reduction in intake?

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#283

Post by iandanforth »

Xylakant wrote: post #122
Anderkent wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why not call the police?

It’s heavy handed and a hassle. And I shouldn’t have to deal with it. Simple as that. I’m also in the privileged position that I could, but for other people calling the police bears a significant risk of ending up on the receiving end of the police interaction. So, the onus of proactively dealing with this is on the person renting the flat to guests. And AirBnB fails miserably at that.

"I shouldn't have to deal with it." is the core of nimbyism.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#284

Post by vokep »

andy_ppp wrote: post #25
fredley wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the approach taken in London: Anyone can AirBnB their property, but only for 90 days a year, unless you have special permission. This prevents people buying up/renting flats just to let them out on AirBnB and putting pressure on the already cripplingly bad housing situation.

Isn’t this just ignored largely?

serial killers just ignore the fact that murder is illegal, but there aren't too many serial killers.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#285

Post by kinsomo »

DINKDINK wrote: post #267
kinsomo wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seeing as the proponents -- of regulations regarding who can trade what with whom -- first cited issue is "Affordability", categorically, yes, these regulations are about making things "cheaper". > How successful has the US government been at balancing trillion dollar bailouts for the banking/political class and endless wars of murder? Building a system where the minutia of liberty can be taken away with a stroke o…

>meant to help people who are annoyed So to summarize you: rights are not inalienable but dependent on if people get annoyed. Do you see how philosophically weak that position is? Should Muslims be deported because the US government finds them annoying and people 'never chose to live next door to them'? Rights must be grounded in something other than 'popular opinion'. I'd rather live in a world where I simply have t…

> So to summarize you: rights are not inalienable but dependent on if people get annoyed.

You're not being reasonable, but rather reading your own straw men into what I wrote.

Based on your misunderstandings, I can pretty confidently say that "rights" are a lot more complicated and multifaceted than you seem to comprehend. There are more kinds of rights relevant here than just property ownership rights and those created through contracts.

To put it another way: these Japanese regulations can be thought of as an articulation of preexisting rights that hadn't previously been codified.

I'm just going to ignore all the ridiculous hyperbole in the rest of your comment, because it's not worth a response. You seem enchanted by an over-simple toy mental model of society (with an admittedly seductive simplicity), and angry that it's not normative in a world that's too complex for it to fit.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#286

Post by wooter »

3pt14159 wrote: post #183
wooter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

foolish and regressive. enjoy higher DUI rates, less service and less availability. for what its worth, i've been taking uber and lyft in quebec for years.

I'm not anti-uber, I'm against flouting the rule of law and fucking over taxi drivers that put their life savings into licenses.

blame the people extorting taxi drivers for licenses. the government shouldn't be able to tell you what you can use your car for.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#287

Post by Xylakant »

iandanforth wrote: post #283
Xylakant wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s heavy handed and a hassle. And I shouldn’t have to deal with it. Simple as that. I’m also in the privileged position that I could, but for other people calling the police bears a significant risk of ending up on the receiving end of the police interaction. So, the onus of proactively dealing with this is on the person renting the flat to guests. And AirBnB fails miserably at that.

"I shouldn't have to deal with it." is the core of nimbyism.

No, actually no. I should not have to deal with the totally avoidable negative externalities of you doing business is not nimbyism.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#288

Post by alexgmcm »

mason55 wrote: post #231
alexgmcm wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Barcelona where there is a big issue due to Airbnb. I moved here from the UK and I work in Data Science so I'm not like a janitor or something. The problem is that Airbnb will charge maybe 80-120 euros a night for an apartment depending on size, location etc. And I am paying 750 euros a month. So a landlord can make more money from a week of Airbnb than a month of normal rental. In the three years I have be…

> In the three years I have been here the rents have risen probably 15% or so - it means even with promotions and pay rises you just keep up. Well, except you also have 15% more money after paying rent as well. If you save the same percentage of your overall income then your absolute savings went up 15%. And if you assume that all your other costs are not rising as quickly (maybe fair, maybe not) then you could save…

No, I mean my salary went up at most 15-20% in that time.

So it means even with promotions etc. you just break even - it feels like you are just working for your landlord.

That said, it is still better than London where the situation is just untenable and I prefer the quality of life here as well. (sadly so do all the tourists!)

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#289

Post by newfoundglory »

lebanon_tn wrote: post #259
JohnTHaller wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AirBnB is already very strict with landlords" Does AirBnB ensure that the landlord/owner is properly licensed to offer the property for a short term rental before listing it? Or do they just take the landlord's word for it? "While most AirBnB renters are polite and respectful, enough of them were loud, disruptive and ignoring the local rules (for example, tourists in Venice who use AirBnB but ignore the very strict…

Pardon my ignorance. What is the benefit / purpose of the license besides added revenue for whatever municipality the rental is in? Is there some kind of inspection or background check process?

Is this a serious question? It allows an area to be in control of how many short term rentals are being made, and where they are, and how often they are available.

Re: Nearly 80% of Japan’s Airbnbs removed in response to new home-share law

#290

Post by newfoundglory »

gojomo wrote: post #276
Symbiote wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Anywhere where cruise ships are regular visitors. There are often free meals on the ship, and obviously no overnight stays in hotels. 2. Anywhere popular with young tourists (Amsterdam, Berlin etc). This might be limited to Europe, with a €20 flight (or bus) to the city, a bed in a cheap hostel, a visit to all the free things etc. This isn't new, but Couchsurfing and cheap transport have probably increased it.

Interesting! But, those types of tourists don't seem to overlap with AirBnB-type tourists, against whom the upthread complaints & proposals are directed. So while I'm interested to hear of those cases, this "they don't spend" concern still seems out-of-place if directed against AirBnBers.

Airbnb is definitely among the "cheap hostel" options available today. Get a 2 bedroom apartment, put a couple bunk beds in each room, voila.
Post reply on HN