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

Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

vancouver.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#81

Post by stale2002 »

fatbird wrote: post #52
chii wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not nihilism, but a correct free market response to over-investment in a particular asset type. The fact that this didn't happen is due to regulation and other market distortions.

I'm not sure why I should give the "correct free market response" any airtime at all, given that 1) it would appear to require making one of the top 5 Canadian cities into "scorched earth", meaning a wasteland of empty housing in order to drive out investment money so that... why? and 2) any one of a hundred or more demonstrable failures of free markets that have fueled the drive for regulation more than anything els…

Because having a bunch of free, empty apartments that investors paid for is wonderful! It means that they can be used and are available for all the productive things that building are, on the cheap.

If you could wave a magic wand and do the same thing for food and water wouldn't you do so?

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#82

Post by fatbird »

stale2002 wrote: post #81
fatbird wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why I should give the "correct free market response" any airtime at all, given that 1) it would appear to require making one of the top 5 Canadian cities into "scorched earth", meaning a wasteland of empty housing in order to drive out investment money so that... why? and 2) any one of a hundred or more demonstrable failures of free markets that have fueled the drive for regulation more than anything els…

Because having a bunch of free, empty apartments that investors paid for is wonderful! It means that they can be used and are available for all the productive things that building are, on the cheap. If you could wave a magic wand and do the same thing for food and water wouldn't you do so?

If they fill up because they're cheap, that indicates market demand that will bring the investors back. You're not going to keep them out unless Vancouver becomes, in significant part, a ghost town.

Which has another cost: everyone here who owns their own property would see their most significant asset disappear as the value of their home plummeted along with all the investment properties.

If I could do the same for food, we'd soon live in a hellscape of rotten food.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#83

Post by conanbatt »

sov wrote: post #79
conanbatt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a fact of the matter that landlords buying multiple apartments to rent out temporary AirBnBs reduces housing stock, just as it's a fact that refusing to rezone certain areas of Vancouver reduces potential house stock. In a pre-hotel era, it could have been also argued that hotels reduce the housing stock. After all, if long term residents dont use them, you could build residents in that place. It has to be mad…

> In a pre-hotel era, it could have been also argued that hotels reduce the housing stock. After all, if long term residents dont use them, you could build residents in that place. Sure, in a pre-hotel era, but then someone thought "hey what about people coming to visit our city?" and hotels were born. > It has to be made absolutely clear that favoring long term residents over short term residents is a matter of powe…

> Sure, in a pre-hotel era, but then someone thought "hey what about people coming to visit our city?" and hotels were born.

And someone thought what about even more of those people and airbnb was born...

> So? The long-term residents are the people that live in the city and actually make it what it is. They get the final say in what goes on in their own city that they pay taxes to. It's not about power--unless you mean the economic power to continue to afford to live in their city.

Thats your opinion. What would new york be without tourists? Or vancouver? Definitely a different city.

And they pay taxes for services they consume, not to get a privilege over stranges, that, by the way, also pay taxes. In fact, the visitors do more for the city than the actual tax paying residents. Because they bring money in, that increases the revenue of the city as well as of the individuals. If that were the bar to measure, then it would be the visitors that get to vote over the locals, since they do so much more to fill the coffers.

> I mean, your argument here is basically "wealthy travelers with the help of a large, wealthy corporation should be allowed to break local laws because it might be better for the economy."

If your main concern is companies breaking the law, then I have a proposition to satisfy you and me at the same time. Do away with the laws, and now there are no law-breakers.

> This is a far cry from your original statement of "Short term rentals do not diminish housing stock"

You are switching the definition of housing stock: they dont diminish it, they increase it. More people fit in the same space thanks to airbnb, because it extends utilization rates and adds density: it just does so at a cost to the long term resident over short term residents.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#84

Post by around_here »

conanbatt wrote: post #73
around_here wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That requirement is as sensible as saying that vancouver should outlaw residents from vacationing outside vancouver to ensure there are no vacant properties. Its not the goal to maximize each minute within a housing unit, thats not something you want to focus on. You do want people living in their homes for the vast majority of the time. You want them living there, hopefully being part of the community, getting inv…

> You do want people living in their homes for the vast majority of the time. You want them living there, hopefully being part of the community, getting invested in their lives there. The original argument is very sensible. I vehemently disagree. People should be doing what they want, not what some other random person thinks they should be doing. Cities have dead periods all the time: people leave new york in the win…

> I vehemently disagree. People should be doing what they want, not what some other random person thinks they should be doing. Cities have dead periods all the time: people leave new york in the winter, or buenos aires in the summer. The idea that a community grows stronger by putting a fence is a sad one to me.

A society's benefit takes precedent over the desires of individuals. A society wants people living in their homes most of the time. They want the majority of housing for residents with very few, specific examples such as resort towns.

> It is the equivalent premise to saying that you should ban hotels so there are more long term residents, or known as, reduce short term housing stock to increase long term housing stock.

Again, that's not the case. Hotels are purpose built, temporary places for people to stay. AirBnB is made on the premise of converting existing long-term housing in to short-term rentals.

> You might also not hear anyone say they use cabs more because of lyft and uber but I assure you that they do. Hotels have not particularly suffered their market share because of airbnb, but airbnb is widely used in all major cities. Hostels probably took a hit, but nowhere near the usage airbnb has. Hotels ~=, Hostels -=, Airbnb ++++= => people are travelling more.

I don't have any numbers here and without doing it, I'm not going to hand wave at it anymore.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#85

Post by brailsafe »

kahnpro wrote: post #74
brailsafe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think transit is poor?

Come to Europe. Then go back to pretty much any North American city.

I have, and would like to move there if I can manage it. Valid criticism to be sure, but I think it's a bit misguided to levy a statement like "Vancouver transit sucks". Because it doesn't. At the very least it's pretty good. No it's not Zurich or Schenzen, but it's also not Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#86

Post by brailsafe »

PakG1 wrote: post #71
brailsafe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think transit is poor?

Compare to a city with great transit, then you know. I used to think that Vancouver transit was great. Then I started working in Shenzhen. Shenzhen and Hong Kong are awesome at public transit, Vancouver sucks. Part of the problem is that it's difficult for public transit in Vancouver to be profitable because the population density is so low.

You're not incorrect, and I think it's always important to look higher and strive for that. However, it's also such an unhealthy and distasteful attitude to embrace. Now, I actually do say the same about the transit in the city I'm currently living in (Winnipeg, MB), but you have to consider the test case for what makes transit "suck". Let's use basic reliability as a measure for this. Can I expect a bus to be on time and get me to work? In Vancouver yes, in Winnipeg no. Can I expect constant time travel to the downtown core from a suburb? In Vancouver yes, in Winnipeg the bus might not show up. Is there better? Yes. In Zurich for example everything was impossibly on time every time, but the country's reputation is literally watches and money.

Population density does play a huge part, which forces inadequate access to skytrains and so on, but you can still catch a bus, then use the same fare to get on the seabus, then the skytrain, then more buses, and maybe bring your bike so you can get that last mile in.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#87

Post by conanbatt »

around_here wrote: post #84
conanbatt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do want people living in their homes for the vast majority of the time. You want them living there, hopefully being part of the community, getting invested in their lives there. The original argument is very sensible. I vehemently disagree. People should be doing what they want, not what some other random person thinks they should be doing. Cities have dead periods all the time: people leave new york in the win…

> I vehemently disagree. People should be doing what they want, not what some other random person thinks they should be doing. Cities have dead periods all the time: people leave new york in the winter, or buenos aires in the summer. The idea that a community grows stronger by putting a fence is a sad one to me. A society's benefit takes precedent over the desires of individuals. A society wants people living in thei…

>A society's benefit takes precedent over the desires of individuals. A society wants people living in their homes most of the time. They want the majority of housing for residents with very few, specific examples such as resort towns.

Okay, then if society > individuals, definitely you should not regulate airbnb over long term residents, because short term residents are a higher portion of society. Way to shoot yourself in the foot!

> Again, that's not the case. Hotels are purpose built, temporary places for people to stay. AirBnB is made on the premise of converting existing long-term housing in to short-term rentals.

Unless you have the strange assumption that hotels take no space whatsoever, they also convert long term housing to short term housing.

> I don't have any numbers here and without doing it, I'm not going to hand wave at it anymore.

One of the biggest new companies in the world, valued at multiple tens of billions, takes a 15% cut on short term rentals, hotels stocks are doing fine and you honestly believe people are not travelling more?

I suggest you talk with people you know and ask them how many times they stayed at a hotel in their lifetime and how many times they stayed at an airbnb. The answer will surprise you.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#88

Post by PakG1 »

munk-a wrote: post #77
PakG1 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare to a city with great transit, then you know. I used to think that Vancouver transit was great. Then I started working in Shenzhen. Shenzhen and Hong Kong are awesome at public transit, Vancouver sucks. Part of the problem is that it's difficult for public transit in Vancouver to be profitable because the population density is so low.

I agree, and part of your message is one of my strong objections. Public transit shouldn't be measured in terms of income-cost for profitability, most commercial ventures come with externalities of some sort and public transit provides a strongly net positive externality effect, it helps to subsidize business costs (cheaper transit can be seen as a subsidy to wages), retail prices (again, paying less gas/time/whateve…

Fair enough. When I said profitable, I used the wrong word for what I meant. What I meant to say was sustainable. Profitable public transit is easily sustainable. Unprofitable public transit, harder to make sustainable, requires a really serious government commitment, and there are so many other things that also seriously require government equipment. For example, if I had to choose between Vancouver having good public transit and good public health care, I'd choose good public health care. Of course in an ideal world, they'd find funding for two (and more) unprofitable public programs.

Re: Vancouver signs first agreement in Canada with Airbnb for short-term rentals

#89

Post by andrewjl »

fatbird wrote: post #55
andrewjl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a reply to the sibling comment rather than the parent (which I largely agree with). Politically incorrect rhetoric aside, it's clear than Vancouver's housing shortage can be easily addressed by free market mechanics. Increased supply, even if not available on the market means that the owner or occupant will not outbid a local on a different housing unit. Multiple additional housing units will over time enter…

For the last 20 years Vancouver has had a building boom in which housing starts and completions have been at record highs. We're adding housing stock as fast as we can and faster than almost any municipality in North America. After 20 years, we're at record high prices, available rental properties are at record lows, and rents are at record highs. How is it that glutting supply has failed to drive prices down, correc…

Faster than Seattle on a population-adjusted basis?
Post reply on HN