91–100 of 276 posts
The people who run AirBnB simply don't respect the feelings of others and the investors should change management to those who do respect feelings of others.
My general libertarian bent generally would lead me to hate this sort of legislation, but in markets where housing is near max utilization, it's not only desirable, it's necessary. We already have enough of an issue with housing in places like NYC and SF without landlords turning apartment buildings into shitty hotels full of vacationers and Spring Break types who do not care the slightest for the condition of the pr…
The reason there isn't enough housing, in SF especially is government intervention. Zoning laws prevent housing supply meeting demand.
In NYC, rent control laws are a major factor in the artificial housing shortage. There's a consensus across economists of all stripes that rent control is a bad thing ("the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city -- except for bombing"). See the studies cited here. [2]
[1] http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/01/san-francisco-can-become-a-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The term that's involved in this is "externality": costs that are imposed on people not involved in the actual transaction (use of the place for payment). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality You rightly point out, that, for instance, in a crowded apartment building, having something like a dynamite storage facility would probably be a bad idea. However, other things might be annoying too, such as having children…
At some point, the cost of adjusting for the externalities will erase the savings of AirBnB. Which would indicate that the much of the "benefit" of AirBnB simply comes from not paying for the externalities. Beyond the neighbors, there would also need to be city taxes to pay for the regulation and oversight of the rental (and fire inspections, etc), and the use of city services by visitors (who probably don't pay inco…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you define 'efficient'? Is pushing out people who want to live in the city in order to fit more visitors an efficient use of resources? I would argue that it is not.
The free market is deciding what the best use of the space is, in terms of generating revenue and value for all parties involved. That's the power of the sharing economy
I've had this argument with several people. Their position is that "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want with it" (even when renting they use this argument). My argument is that this is not and has never been true. You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment. What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. An endless…
Your argument is completely shallow and void of reason.. > You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment Why not? Whats your argument? >What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. If I owned a building then I set the rules/laws. This is about property rights, not about what you think is right or wrong. If I want to turn my home into a tr…
> Why not? Whats your argument?
Because it smells bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanning#History
Illegal hotels are actually a legit problem in NYC. I'd have to dig up the article but I've read about shady landlords evicting residents and turning entire apartment buildings into Airbnb hotels. Its big business, my friend pays his entire rent with Airbnb. Real estate is at an extreme premium and hotel space is scarce. There are a lot of scammers and shady people in this city so its only natural that Airbnb will be…
>I'd have to dig up the article but I've read about shady landlords evicting residents and turning entire apartment buildings into Airbnb hotels. Why shouldn't landlords have the right to turn their buildings into Airbnbn hotels? (Assuming that the landlord pays taxes as usual, and the evicted residents were evicted under the rental agreement).
I've had this argument with several people. Their position is that "it's my house/apartment, I should be able to do what I want with it" (even when renting they use this argument). My argument is that this is not and has never been true. You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment. What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. An endless…
Your argument is completely shallow and void of reason.. > You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment Why not? Whats your argument? >What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel. If I owned a building then I set the rules/laws. This is about property rights, not about what you think is right or wrong. If I want to turn my home into a tr…
Because tanning hides requires strong acid and a bunch of other chemicals and it will stink up the building and probably break some kind of regulation for residential spaces. If you happen to be a tanner and you disagree with it, pretend he said "Nuclear reactor" or "shooting range".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I mean another law that needs to be changed, not necessarily abolished. The law should be updated so that people can legal advertise their places on AirBNB. Not doing so would be neglecting a stream of revenue that could be beneficial to the city. When I say "made obsolete by the internet" I mean that some service or product made possible by the internet is requiring us to take a look at some piece of legisla…
Short term rentals and hotels have existed since time immemorial, and the laws were created in response to those services. The fact that AirBnB now allows advertising that service over the internet instead of a classified is neither here nor there.
Not only that, but the pool of renters or owners will grow because they see AirBnB as a easy resource to advertise their properties.
The growth of both groups of people change the economy and the effectiveness of the current law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point, the cost of adjusting for the externalities will erase the savings of AirBnB. Which would indicate that the much of the "benefit" of AirBnB simply comes from not paying for the externalities. Beyond the neighbors, there would also need to be city taxes to pay for the regulation and oversight of the rental (and fire inspections, etc), and the use of city services by visitors (who probably don't pay inco…
Some of the benefit is certainly from skirting regulations, but I can see some big benefits to accessing a much wider range of options, too, so there might well be a place for AirBnB even if it were taxed/regulated a bit more, rather than simply banned.
This ruling only applies to the 5 boroughs of New York City, not the entire state.
This is actually an annoying thing about NYC. In NYC, when people say "New York," they actually mean "New York City's five boroughs." When people say "upstate" or "upstate New York," they mean the rest of the state of New York minus NYC. When people say "the city," they mean "Manhattan." The title only makes sense to residents of NYC.
I lived in Mount Vernon one summer, and I was confused when people in the city (see, I just did it) said I "lived upstate."