Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules • Hacker News Board

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#61

Post by rahimnathwani » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:24 AM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #48

randycupertino wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather my neighbors not run a crackhouse and a brothel on airbnb out of our building, thanks.

Well, you're in luck because both of those things are already illegal.

Some neighbours are excessively noisy or cause a nuisance in other ways. For a long-term neighbour, you can probably fix the problem within a few weeks, and it stays fixed.

When you have a new 'neighbour' every day, the chance of having that problem in given year increase (as among a large group there will be some bad apples). Moreover, the existing methods of solving the problem won't work because (i) the offender will be replaced (maybe with a new offender, maybe not) by the time any enforcement action can be taken, and (ii) social pressure won't work on someone who knows they will be gone in a day or two.

I'm not advocating a particular solution. But please recognise that laws and processes that were designed for dealing with long term neighbours don't necessarily serve the purpose well when those neighbours are changing every day.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#62

Post by jonpaine » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #23

sjwright wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking entirely out of ignorance, how might these policies benefit someone like yourself?

People who buy housing just to rent out on AirBnB would find it more economical to rent out to a long term renter (because the licensing is actually less onerous), thereby increasing the rental supply and lowering rents.

Am I misunderstanding you?

SF's legendary rent control creates a clear incentive for landlords to use a service like Airbnb to continually rent at market rate (though lower occupancy rate) while maintaining control to allocate the unit as they see fit. Renting a unit in sf both freezes rental revenue and removes the owners control to reallocate the unit.

Did you mean something else?

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#63

Post by rahimnathwani » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:27 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43

paulmd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. There are significant negative externalities associated with transient populations. For starters: Occupational safety (branches falling down and crushing you on a tire swing), fire safety, bedbugs, noise/loud parties, litter, criminal occupancy, secondary vice (drug dens/prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). The problem of a bunch of sailors coming into port has been recognized since antiquity. Skeezy/…

...secondary vice (drug dens/solicitation of prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). Since we are regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, shall we also bring up the possibility of homosexuals engage in sodomy? If that's somehow off limits to regulate, what distinguishes it from the private bedroom activities you bring up?

Orgies and drug dens can have an impact outside the bedroom, and outside the apartment.

Search 'airbnb xxx fest evicted' for details.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#64

Post by brainfire » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43

paulmd wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. There are significant negative externalities associated with transient populations. For starters: Occupational safety (branches falling down and crushing you on a tire swing), fire safety, bedbugs, noise/loud parties, litter, criminal occupancy, secondary vice (drug dens/prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). The problem of a bunch of sailors coming into port has been recognized since antiquity. Skeezy/…

...secondary vice (drug dens/solicitation of prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). Since we are regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, shall we also bring up the possibility of homosexuals engage in sodomy? If that's somehow off limits to regulate, what distinguishes it from the private bedroom activities you bring up?

Your parent post is talking about the (already illegal) negative effects that follow from the presence of a transient population.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#65

Post by mc32 » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:30 AM UTC

ProAm wrote: post #37

mc32 wrote: post #17

When does Campoes term out anyway? There certainly is a struggle between ownership rights and the right of cities to regulate business within their jurisdiction. As a renter, I can sympathize with wanting to avail more rental properties to renters, but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal. It's not confis…

> but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal The list of things you cannot do is already extremely lengthy and much to the chagrin of homeowners. I assume you've only rented and never owned, but wait until you see what your property taxes go to, what you are allowed to build, not build, must maintain, must…

Yes, renter so, far. And I am vaguely aware of the control/ordinances, etc. government impose on property owners --many for the greater and one's own good. But at some point it becomes too much. My favorite is the old window tax they used to collect in France, among other places, centuries? ago. People boarded up their windows.

I also am very wary of the Chavezist instinct to blame property owners and businesses for the faults and failings of bad government planning and policies.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#66

Post by mc32 » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:33 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #60

mc32 wrote: post #17

When does Campoes term out anyway? There certainly is a struggle between ownership rights and the right of cities to regulate business within their jurisdiction. As a renter, I can sympathize with wanting to avail more rental properties to renters, but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal. It's not confis…

politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property OK, let's completely legalize Airbnb-style temporary rentals... but make the host bear the full cost of it . Not the small fraction of the cost the host thinks about, but the actual cost with all the externalities factored in. Because really the only way Airbnb works is if it offloads significant costs onto unconsenting and often unaware third partie…

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.)?

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#67

Post by ProAm » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:35 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #65

ProAm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I am also very uneasy with politicians dictating what you can and cannot do with your property when that act in and of itself is not otherwise illegal The list of things you cannot do is already extremely lengthy and much to the chagrin of homeowners. I assume you've only rented and never owned, but wait until you see what your property taxes go to, what you are allowed to build, not build, must maintain, must…

Yes, renter so, far. And I am vaguely aware of the control/ordinances, etc. government impose on property owners --many for the greater and one's own good. But at some point it becomes too much. My favorite is the old window tax they used to collect in France, among other places, centuries? ago. People boarded up their windows. I also am very wary of the Chavezist instinct to blame property owners and businesses for…

> But at some point it becomes too much

Yes you are correct, the point it usually becomes too much is when you, as an individual, have to begin paying it. Or in this case when a business feels it's paycheck is being affected.

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#68

Post by colechristensen » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:44 AM UTC

gshulegaard wrote: post #36

sp332 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your neighbors might not want you to let out your place to an endless parade of strangers. This is a case where the government needs to listen to the people, and determine if the majority want more freedom or a nicer neighborhood.

Who cares what your neighbors want? Seriously. In the Seventeenth Century many American colonists were fleeing England due to religious persecution because their religion didn't happen to be the the dominant/majority held belief [1]. The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. The specific topic of tyranny of the majority and ways to combat it were discussed in the Federalist…

You're conflating religious persecution with your neighbors running a hotel. There's a difference. Zoning laws have existed for a long time, and unless you're pretty far towards the libertarian extreme, nobody really has a problem with them existing (they could be better, but that's a subtle point not a blunt hammer like you're trying to use)

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#69

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #50

nostromo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But your neighbors might not want you to let out your place to an endless parade of strangers. This is the argument NIMBYs have been using against regular old renters since the beginning of time.

Once you own property, you too can be a NIMBY! That's how local property rights work.

[deleted]

Re: Airbnb Is Suing San Francisco to Block Rental Rules

#70

Post by mangeletti » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

tedmiston wrote: post #57

pbreit wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that analogy (sensible, imo) is too much for you then pretend he was talking about GetAround.

To substitute a p2p car sharing service in place of car rental agency completely changes the meaning... Driving a vehicle (your own or renting someone else's) is an activity requiring a license for the agency to validate. I'm unaware of any place in the world requiring a license to sleep and eat breakfast.

It's the hosts they're talking about, not the guests, which would need licenses.

I'm fairly sure you have to have a license to serve breakfast as a business. You also have to be inspected by the health department. Same goes for running a hotel. That stuff all costs money, and it's not up to a private business (AirBnB) to determine how to enforce such laws, even though their existence does change the landscape.