Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market • Hacker News Board

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#81

Post by ThomPete » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #78

ThomPete wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats up with the attitude? This is not a guy who buy high and sell low. This is a guy who have a room in his own apartment where he cramped a kitchenette in and call it a studio (not mentioning that) Since I couldn't go and see it before where does that leave me? You are assuming that I had sufficient information before I moved in. I didn't.

Housing in NYC is expensive. Frankly, it's like whining that Porsche won't sell you a 911 for Miata money, and that furthermore, the car rental agency charges the equivilant of a monthly payment for just one week! Stop the presses...

I have no problem with expensive apartments. I paid 12K a month years back. That was fair.

This is just not fair pricing and is taking advantage of the situation that once you are there it's too late.

That has nothing to do with capitalism or retailing.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#82

Post by TylerE » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #81

TylerE wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing in NYC is expensive. Frankly, it's like whining that Porsche won't sell you a 911 for Miata money, and that furthermore, the car rental agency charges the equivilant of a monthly payment for just one week! Stop the presses...

I have no problem with expensive apartments. I paid 12K a month years back. That was fair. This is just not fair pricing and is taking advantage of the situation that once you are there it's too late. That has nothing to do with capitalism or retailing.

It has everything to do with it. Supply and Demand, etc. "Taking advantage" is a moral term. A capitalist would call it "leaving money on the table".

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#83

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 5:58 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #81

TylerE wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing in NYC is expensive. Frankly, it's like whining that Porsche won't sell you a 911 for Miata money, and that furthermore, the car rental agency charges the equivilant of a monthly payment for just one week! Stop the presses...

I have no problem with expensive apartments. I paid 12K a month years back. That was fair. This is just not fair pricing and is taking advantage of the situation that once you are there it's too late. That has nothing to do with capitalism or retailing.

[deleted]

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#84

Post by jusben1369 » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:03 PM UTC

tomkarlo wrote: post #62

slug wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...…

Right. I should have been clearer. Airbnb person staying in building sets building on fire. Insurance companies always look for anyway not to pay. Search web, find evidence that apartment was active on AirBnB and deny claim as it's a breach. Now everyone else in the building has to go after the Landlord directly.

Bottom line would appear to be that leases will soon specifically speak to this new business model and it probably won't be what most people would like to see.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#85

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:07 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #8

For an industry so focused on disrupting ...everything. Things start to get real hard, boring and normal when met with success and exposure to the public . I admire the optimism that youth brings, allowing someone to look at a problem with a fresh perspective but all too often, the rules, laws and regulations in place that make the old way of doing business so boring and hard are actually in place for a very good rea…

Also, if they are not their customers why should ABNB care?

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#86

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:12 PM UTC

Adirael wrote: post #11

This kind of lettings are a PITA for the neighbours, with or without AirBnB. I used to live in a city with high level of tourism and the apartment next door was rented in a short term fashion. Sometimes the people was nice, others they were noisy, there's nothing AirBnB or the owner can really do apart from removing the people form the property if they are breaking the law or community rules. Taxes and laws are a tot…

My neighbors are pretty noise and the appartment is leased on a normal contract.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#87

Post by fr0sty » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:18 PM UTC

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.

> and since there is not negative feedback mechanism everyone just charges more and more.

There IS a negative feedback mechanism. Occupancy rates. Once people stop paying the asking rates for listings the prices will fall. It is called "what the market will bear".

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#88

Post by spinlock » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:36 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #80

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…

Checking the credit of the tenant is about the landlord worrying they won't get paid. This is entirely unrelated to the tenant's relationship with a potential subletter. The rest of your post stands, though - landlords have a valid concern for the condition of the apartment, disruption of other tenants, &c.

As a - former - landlord, I can tell you that I was interested in much more than just credit scores. I wanted to have stable, long term tenants in my units. I also wanted responsible people who would tell me if there was a drip so that I could fix it before it became and issue. I found that the more time I spent vetting tenants, the less time I had to spend worrying about disputes and other issues. Tenants live in a valuable asset and everything from their cleanliness to job stability really matters.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#89

Post by ThomPete » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:38 PM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #82

ThomPete wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with expensive apartments. I paid 12K a month years back. That was fair. This is just not fair pricing and is taking advantage of the situation that once you are there it's too late. That has nothing to do with capitalism or retailing.

It has everything to do with it. Supply and Demand, etc. "Taking advantage" is a moral term. A capitalist would call it "leaving money on the table".

There is no such a thing as a pure capitalist unless you are claiming that there are people without any moral what so ever.

You are trying to separate two things as if that's possible. It's not. In language yes but in reality no.

I was not given all the information.

Re: Short-term rentals disrupting SF housing market

#90

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Jun 11, 2012, 6:43 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #88

dllthomas wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Checking the credit of the tenant is about the landlord worrying they won't get paid. This is entirely unrelated to the tenant's relationship with a potential subletter. The rest of your post stands, though - landlords have a valid concern for the condition of the apartment, disruption of other tenants, &c.

As a - former - landlord, I can tell you that I was interested in much more than just credit scores. I wanted to have stable, long term tenants in my units. I also wanted responsible people who would tell me if there was a drip so that I could fix it before it became and issue. I found that the more time I spent vetting tenants, the less time I had to spend worrying about disputes and other issues. Tenants live in a…

Right, my point was that the parent had mentioned credit scores, and those in particular were irrelevant. As I said, the general point - that landlords deserve some measure of oversight in the handling of their valuable assets - absolutely stands.