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

Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

us5.campaign-archive1.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#51

Post by rch »

moron4hire wrote: post #40
schrodinger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes a short term gain in capital doesn't result in a long term social benefit. Of course people on vacation will spend more for a few days than a resident will for rent. But if that grows unchecked, the city will begin to lose its residents. Which additionally will result in a decline in income taxes, so it may even result in a decline in tax revene.

And if the city loses residents, then it can't support its tourism industry as well, and then it become less of an attractive tourist destination. This really seems like a self correcting problem.

That correction cycle could take decades, and some neighborhoods could be altered dramatically in the process. It really doesn't affect me at all either way, but I can acknowledge that some people have concerns, or at least a legitimate interest in managing probable outcomes.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#52

Post by krschultz »

moron4hire wrote: post #16
rch wrote: post #4

> we need to protect the limited housing stock we have from being arbitraged into other uses This seems like a more compelling point than the title topic.

So basically, she's admitting that the property is more valuable than its current use, and the city is actively denying itself tax revenue because of it.

If the AirBnb rentals complied with hotel regulations you would have a point, but it's not an apples to apples comparison. Renters/owners like to take advantage of the fact that by not being in compliance with hotel laws they can undercut hotel prices and make an illegal profit. That's not the same as what the underlying property value is if you comply with regulations.

Investors in NYC given the choice of building hotels, office buildings, or residential properties are generally building residential properties. In fact a lot of the rezoning has been turning commercial space into residential space over the last 5-10 years. The market is clearly demanding residential space (specifically luxury units) first and foremost.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#53

Post by brownbat »

We have some inconsistent intuitions about what the government should be allowed to regulate.

It seems like I should be able to give a neighbor's kid a 20 to pick up some leaves without getting the government involved. It seems like I should be able to give a friend a dollar for running and grabbing me a coke without consulting minimum wage laws or local sales taxes. I should be able to lend my cousin some money without registering as a bank.

A business hiring leafblowers or messengers with a "no questions asked" policy, or even an individual loan shark, seems like the law should get involved.

The internet as a communication platform blurs these lines. It lowers the barriers between strangers and acquaintances and friends. It lets private individuals behave like businesses some of the time. It lets small transactions rapidly scale.

I don't think one set of intuitions is necessarily right or wrong. But I think these conflicting intuitions make some people libertarians towards businesses like airbnb and uber, and other people think those businesses are just profiting off of skirting regulations.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#54

Post by tpeng »

The issue is not between AirBNB and its customers; its customers can evaluate the risks of renting on AirBNB, and factor that into their rental price, as well as insure for adverse outcomes.

The real issue is that AirBNB also imposes these risks on communities (i.e., AirBNB's customers' neighbors) by exposing them to, in the worst case, criminal elements, but even in a normal case, temporary renters who lack incentive to follow social norms or respect communal property.

This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates. Such a solution would most likely be a combination of technical solutions to minimize bad outcomes and perhaps a tax on AirBNB, the proceeds of which could compensate communities for the externality imposed by AirBNB.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#55

Post by teacup50 »

fleitz wrote: post #47
tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing the neighbors of these short term rental properties didn't consent to Airbnb's customers rezoning their neighborhoods for them.

I'm guessing that since the person in the article was informed by the police and not her neighbors, that no one had any clue.

How does that conclusion make even the smallest bit of sense to you?

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#56

Post by joe_the_user »

moron4hire wrote: post #40
schrodinger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes a short term gain in capital doesn't result in a long term social benefit. Of course people on vacation will spend more for a few days than a resident will for rent. But if that grows unchecked, the city will begin to lose its residents. Which additionally will result in a decline in income taxes, so it may even result in a decline in tax revene.

And if the city loses residents, then it can't support its tourism industry as well, and then it become less of an attractive tourist destination. This really seems like a self correcting problem.

Virtually all problems of civilization are "self-correcting" in one fashion or other.

But that doesn't mean that the residents of a city are obligated to just sit around until a problem, say gang violence or murder-for-hire, corrects itself. "Society" is about taking action to, uh, "proactively" correct these things.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#57

Post by teacup50 »

tpeng wrote: post #54

The issue is not between AirBNB and its customers; its customers can evaluate the risks of renting on AirBNB, and factor that into their rental price, as well as insure for adverse outcomes. The real issue is that AirBNB also imposes these risks on communities (i.e., AirBNB's customers' neighbors) by exposing them to, in the worst case, criminal elements, but even in a normal case, temporary renters who lack incentiv…

> This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates.

I don't see there being a solution at all; hotels are zoned differently than residential for a reason.

The fact that AirBNB managed to popularize "breaking zoning laws ON THE WEB" doesn't mean that the zoning laws need to change.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#58

Post by mixedbit »

moron4hire wrote: post #40
schrodinger wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes a short term gain in capital doesn't result in a long term social benefit. Of course people on vacation will spend more for a few days than a resident will for rent. But if that grows unchecked, the city will begin to lose its residents. Which additionally will result in a decline in income taxes, so it may even result in a decline in tax revene.

And if the city loses residents, then it can't support its tourism industry as well, and then it become less of an attractive tourist destination. This really seems like a self correcting problem.

It isn't necessarily the case. When individuals optimize their outcomes, they often make decisions that are not optimal from the whole group perspective. In such cases regulations are necessarily to achieve optimal global solution.

Re: Krueger Statement on Use of Airbnb for Floating Brothels

#60

Post by tpeng »

teacup50 wrote: post #57
tpeng wrote: post #54

The issue is not between AirBNB and its customers; its customers can evaluate the risks of renting on AirBNB, and factor that into their rental price, as well as insure for adverse outcomes. The real issue is that AirBNB also imposes these risks on communities (i.e., AirBNB's customers' neighbors) by exposing them to, in the worst case, criminal elements, but even in a normal case, temporary renters who lack incentiv…

> This doesn't mean that AirBNB's business can't work, but it does mean that AirBNB needs to work with regulators to find a solution acceptable to the communities in which it operates. I don't see there being a solution at all; hotels are zoned differently than residential for a reason. The fact that AirBNB managed to popularize "breaking zoning laws ON THE WEB" doesn't mean that the zoning laws need to change.

I live in a downtown residential building one block away from a hotel, so that's not always the case. Of course, some communities may choose to prohibit AirBNB altogether.

I think the bigger issue is if the externalities imposed by normal usage are so high that, when properly internalized, AirBNB no longer presents a compelling value proposition in the majority of cases. This is certainly possible.

From AirBNB's perspective, perhaps they just fight the internalization as hard as possible. There are businesses with much costlier externalities, such as energy companies, that are actually subsidized and not taxed. In the AirBNB case, however, they may have a tougher fight as the harm, while lower in aggregate, is also less diffuse.

Post reply on HN