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

SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#71

Post by mattnewton »

Simon_says wrote: post #54
ilikehurdles wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property owners are responsible for the housing crisis. The city is at their whim. But that’s beside the point, because this is a case about an unlicensed Airbnb. I don’t know what the laws are where you come from, but someone illegally turning their multi-tenant property in a residential neighborhood into a 24-hour motel isn’t someone I have any sympathy for. Besides, Airbnb is no answer to the dearth of housing in…

Either they're being price gouged or they're saving $50 on a hotel room. You can't have it both ways.

The hotels can gouge them harder, or the hotels can be worth the $50 price, etc

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#72

Post by [deleted] »

seattle_spring wrote: post #64
ppeetteerr wrote: post #42

Airbnb is suing NY right now because the city wants the names and addresses of those who are illegally renting without registering their apartments. I believe it's called "disruption"

So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?

[deleted]

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#73

Post by haloux »

dvtrn wrote: post #58
munk-a wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF really is in a situation where a regional development council needs to come in and clear out a lot of the low-density housing, but since that's unlikely to happen this story makes me quite happy.

Pardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.

Dude that’s eminent domain _prima facie_.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#74

Post by ihm »

bcheung wrote: post #31
pertymcpert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?

“Letting supply and demand decide” means deciding to give the housing to whoever will pay the most: which group do you think will pay more, the entire world of tourists who want to visit SF on vacation or people who live here?

Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#75

Post by [deleted] »

seattle_spring wrote: post #64
ppeetteerr wrote: post #42

Airbnb is suing NY right now because the city wants the names and addresses of those who are illegally renting without registering their apartments. I believe it's called "disruption"

So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?

[deleted]

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#76

Post by ppeetteerr »

seattle_spring wrote: post #64
ppeetteerr wrote: post #42

Airbnb is suing NY right now because the city wants the names and addresses of those who are illegally renting without registering their apartments. I believe it's called "disruption"

So you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?

If it's the names and addresses of advertisers who have been found to violate laws, yes

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#77

Post by dvtrn »

haloux wrote: post #73
dvtrn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pardon my snark, but this sounds like eminent domain wearing a velvet glove.

Dude that’s eminent domain _prima facie_.

Look I had to be sure, I've never seen anyone actually suggest eminent domain so casually before. The only times I've seen it have been in grainy, fuzzy news reports from the 80's.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#79

Post by torgian »

pertymcpert wrote: post #24
bcheung wrote: post #16

What is the motivation for this law? Why is SF regulating the length of stay or rentors at all? Seems like a gross violation of freedom and property rights. Zoning I can understand but duration? This seems like a bad law.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

How is renting it out with Airbnb different from an owner just holding onto the property and not living in it?

If anything, cities should encourage property owners to rent out spare rooms or empty apartments to tourists to bring in that spending money.

Re: SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals

#80

Post by traek »

bcheung wrote: post #31
pertymcpert wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?

Because tourists tend to impose negative externalities upon the city (like getting drunk and throwing up in the streets), and long-term residents tend to impose positive externalities (like planting flowerboxes at their windows).

Also because residents pay for public services via taxes, and tourists staying in illegal Airbnbs don't even pay hotel taxes.

Also because residents, not tourists, vote.

Post reply on HN