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

Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#61

Post by ThomPete »

TylerE wrote: post #54
ThomPete wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is. right now I am looking at a 1BR appartment completely modern building, rooftop, open kitchen the works for 3600USD. There are many places on AirBnB that have simply pumped up the prices to make a living and since there is not negative feedback mechanism everyone just charges more and more. Craigslist yeah i tried that, i enden up with mostly scams and bait and switch guys.

It's called capitalism. You're paying for the convenience of not having to wait to move in, not having to sign a long-term lease, etc. Of course you should expect to pay more than someone who puts up with those downsides.

It's inconsistent that is what it is.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#62

Post by tomkarlo »

slug wrote: post #56
jusben1369 wrote: post #44

Weird no one mentions insurance. That's the biggest issue of all I would think. Landlords have insurance for legitimate tenants.

They do? The last time I read a lease mentioning an insurance was only to pay a hotel in case of fire/flooding, anything else you are on your own.

It wouldn't be in the lease, it's not for the tenant. Landlords will carry liability insurance for their units in case a tenant or their guest is injured, etc and decides to sue the landlord. Those liability policies often have limitations on who they'll cover, how the unit can be used, etc.

I'm guessing the insurance companies find a way to avoid covering you if you let a tenant sublet their apartment hotel-style... if for no other reason than I'd bet policies for hotels are more expensive than residences. (And hotels have to have better fire protection, etc.)

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#63

Post by tomkarlo »

ThomPete wrote: post #48
jaems33 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there are places on Craigslist you probably could've found cheaper in Chinatown of all places. But studio apartments in general are expensive in a place like Secondly, Airbnb does have plenty of shared places in Queens and Brooklyn that go for less than seventy bucks a day, and studios that would be closer to 2k.

The thing is. right now I am looking at a 1BR appartment completely modern building, rooftop, open kitchen the works for 3600USD. There are many places on AirBnB that have simply pumped up the prices to make a living and since there is not negative feedback mechanism everyone just charges more and more. Craigslist yeah i tried that, i enden up with mostly scams and bait and switch guys.

You can't compare AirBnB to an apartment rental, especially in NY where two months down is not uncommon. Seems like it's more appropriate to compare it to a hotel room... in which case $110 a night is a steal.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#64

Post by Zak »

tptacek wrote: post #10

Much of the criticism of Airbnb in this article seems to stem from renters "subletting" their apartments to vacationers. Why does Airbnb allow renters to list their apartments on Airbnb at all? In virtually no case does a renter have a lease that permits Airbnb-style listings; the boilerplate lease that virtually everyone works from requires landlord approval for each subletter. It seems unconscionable to rent an apa…

Why does Airbnb allow renters to list their apartments on Airbnb at all?

What is the incentive for Airbnb to check? Even assuming most listers do have the legal right to do so, checking in a way that isn't easily gamed would be time-consuming and expensive. It's pretty obvious why they don't do that; it would put them out of business.

Was this a rhetorical question meant to make the point "Airbnb is bad"?

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#65

Post by arethuza »

ditojim wrote: post #32
arethuza wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"how many homeowners really want strangers coming in and out of their home regularly?" Everyone who runs a Bed and Breakfast business from their home? (In the UK this sector is huge ).

"Everyone who runs a Bed and Breakfast business from their home? (In the UK this sector is huge)." "everyone" and "huge" - can you put some #s or %s behind this statement? is it 5% of the homeowner population?

Don't know overall, according to Wikipedia here in Edinburgh there are apparently "several hundred" - which seems quite a lot for a city of less than half a million people. Having said that, Edinburgh does get quite a few visitors (~1 million overseas visitors a year).

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#66

Post by TylerE »

ThomPete wrote: post #61
TylerE wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called capitalism. You're paying for the convenience of not having to wait to move in, not having to sign a long-term lease, etc. Of course you should expect to pay more than someone who puts up with those downsides.

It's inconsistent that is what it is.

No, it's not. Do you really not understand how basic retail economics works? Are you expecting someone to buy high and sell low?

As you yourself proved, if people will pay it, that's what the market rate is. Think it's extortionate? Don't pay it and make other arrangements.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#67

Post by RobAtticus »

cluutran wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just knew someone was going to come in here pointing out that they knew of a landlord that drafted their lease on the back of a used Kleenex. Well. I stand corrected, then.

What? I didn't say that, at all. I'm just saying there are a ton of cases where landlords don't require leases to be signed. Credit checks and references are less common than leases. I live in Chicago and in a big city like this one, there are many, many different renting situations (not just "Kleenex" ones) and not all of them contractually come in conflict with a renter having someone pay to live in part of an apar…

Really, there are landlords that don't require leases? That seems very strange to me. I guess that's why there's always new Judge Judy cases...

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#68

Post by lkrubner »

tptacek wrote: post #10

Much of the criticism of Airbnb in this article seems to stem from renters "subletting" their apartments to vacationers. Why does Airbnb allow renters to list their apartments on Airbnb at all? In virtually no case does a renter have a lease that permits Airbnb-style listings; the boilerplate lease that virtually everyone works from requires landlord approval for each subletter. It seems unconscionable to rent an apa…

I will offer a counter-example to tptacek's argument:

For 18 months (till April) I lived at 16 Waverly Avenue in Brooklyn, New York. I never signed a lease. The landlord did not care about a thing, so long as I paid the rent on the time. In that building, sub-letting apartments is common. The landlord is an older Hasidic Jewish gentleman, and his attitude toward renters is fairly common among the Jewish landlords who own a large chunk of the southern Williamsburg neighborhood. In all of these buildings, the tendency is toward laissez faire. This cuts both ways: the landlord lets you do anything, but the landlord rarely fixes anything that you need fixed. For a particular type of person (like me) this seems like a reasonable trade-off. And in such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for renters to find sub-letters.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#69

Post by AJ007 »

tptacek wrote: post #49
cluutran wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? I didn't say that, at all. I'm just saying there are a ton of cases where landlords don't require leases to be signed. Credit checks and references are less common than leases. I live in Chicago and in a big city like this one, there are many, many different renting situations (not just "Kleenex" ones) and not all of them contractually come in conflict with a renter having someone pay to live in part of an apar…

I live in Chicago and rented in Chicago for many years and I never saw a lease that hadn't been drafted by a lawyer. Most leases are boilerplate --- let alone rentals without leases . If you're renting an apartment without a lease, something shady is going on. But look, in the meantime, can we just implicitly narrow the conversation down to the normal case of "renters with actual leases"? This is a stupid tangent. Ob…

A rental without a lease? That sounds like a friend renting our a spare bedroom to another friend. I would propose that without a lease, it ceases to be a rental, because neither side has any obligation to the other.

Even slumlords require signed leases.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#70

Post by tlrobinson »

vijayr wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #10

Much of the criticism of Airbnb in this article seems to stem from renters "subletting" their apartments to vacationers. Why does Airbnb allow renters to list their apartments on Airbnb at all? In virtually no case does a renter have a lease that permits Airbnb-style listings; the boilerplate lease that virtually everyone works from requires landlord approval for each subletter. It seems unconscionable to rent an apa…

All of this is true, it is unethical and illegal. But it is also true, that in cities like San Francisco and NYC (especially SF-Co) rents are absurdly high, and landlords care nothing other than making the most of it. My previous two landlords forced me to pay only cash for rent, and I know many other landlords do the same, and cheat on taxes. In one place I went, they wanted 450$ for "application fee and credit chec…

California has limits on what landlords can charge for "application fees". I think it's around $40.
Post reply on HN