4 ms·

> In the past year, only about 340 units in SF were rented on Airbnb more than 211 nights ... For the purposes of Prop F, statistics that seem more relevant ar

by jdp23 11y ago

> In the past year, only about 340 units in SF were rented on Airbnb more than 211 nights ... For the purposes of Prop F, statistics that seem more relevant are - how many units are rented more than 90 nights (the current law) [1] - how many units are rented more than 75 nights (as proposed by Prop F) When I see AirBnB supporters focusing on a number that doesn't seems as relevant, it feels like spin to me. > The median number of trips per unit was 5, and mean was 13.3. Interesting shift here to talking about trips per unit, rather than nights per unit. Back in 2012, the average stay was 5.5 days [2]. So does that mean that the average number of days per unit is 71.5 (5.5 * 13)? Also, according to the Chronicle [3], out of the 5,459 listings in 2015, "205 hosts have three or more listings. These super hosts account for 4.8 percent of all hosts, but control 993 properties — 18.2 percent of Airbnb’s local listings." I didn't see anything in Sam's post or the other anti-Prop F posts that discusses this. [1] http://www.cnet.com/news/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-vote-on-airbnb/ http://www.cnet.com/news/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-... [2] http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/ http://blog.airbnb.com/economic-impact-airbnb/ [3] http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/#1 http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/...

chralieboy 11y ago
The 211 number was given as what Airbnb has found to be what it takes to break even on the cost of a unit. Prop F, and others like it, are not trying to destroy Airbnb but stop people from purchasing housing and using it exclusively for short term rentals. That statistic is meant to say that only 340 units were rented out enough to match what could have been made via a lease. So if people are snatching up property to use just for Airbnb, they either aren't doing it a lot or aren't actually making a sound economic decision in all but 340 cases.
- jdp23 11y ago
  I understand what the statistic is meant to say and it does that well. However, the city's already limited units to 90 days, so the 211ers are already handled -- if the city (with AirBnB's cooperation) enforces the law, that is. So I don't this point isn't particularly relevant to Prop F. Your mileage may vary, of course!
kelnos 11y ago
Interesting shift here to talking about trips per unit, rather than nights per unit. I think it's actually a useful metric. A big complaint from neighbors seems to be "frequency of new strangers coming and going", which is what this metric quantifies.
- jdp23 11y ago
  Agreed it's also a useful metric, I was just highlighting the shift. Intentionally or not, it gives the impression that AirBnB supporters don't want to talk about the average nights per unit. > A big complaint from neighbors seems to be "frequency of new strangers coming and going", which is what this metric quantifies. If my downstairs neighbor rents to a AirBnB guest I would still call them a "stranger" even after 5.5 days.
  - kelnos 11y ago
    If my downstairs neighbor rents to a AirBnB guest I would still call them a "stranger" even after 5.5 days. Oh, agreed. I don't think there's any reasonable value of "short term" where that wouldn't be the case. Then again, I've lived in my current building for over a year, and I don't know anyone in the building. A few I recognize on sight, but we all tend to keep to ourselves. I'd consider them "strangers" too.

by jdp23 11y ago

chralieboy 11y ago

The 211 number was given as what Airbnb has found to be what it takes to break even on the cost of a unit. Prop F, and others like it, are not trying to destroy Airbnb but stop people from purchasing housing and using it exclusively for short term rentals. That statistic is meant to say that only 340 units were rented out enough to match what could have been made via a lease. So if people are snatching up property to use just for Airbnb, they either aren't doing it a lot or aren't actually making a sound economic decision in all but 340 cases.

jdp23 11y ago
I understand what the statistic is meant to say and it does that well. However, the city's already limited units to 90 days, so the 211ers are already handled -- if the city (with AirBnB's cooperation) enforces the law, that is. So I don't this point isn't particularly relevant to Prop F. Your mileage may vary, of course!

kelnos 11y ago

Interesting shift here to talking about trips per unit, rather than nights per unit. I think it's actually a useful metric. A big complaint from neighbors seems to be "frequency of new strangers coming and going", which is what this metric quantifies.

jdp23 11y ago
Agreed it's also a useful metric, I was just highlighting the shift. Intentionally or not, it gives the impression that AirBnB supporters don't want to talk about the average nights per unit. > A big complaint from neighbors seems to be "frequency of new strangers coming and going", which is what this metric quantifies. If my downstairs neighbor rents to a AirBnB guest I would still call them a "stranger" even after 5.5 days.
- kelnos 11y ago
  If my downstairs neighbor rents to a AirBnB guest I would still call them a "stranger" even after 5.5 days. Oh, agreed. I don't think there's any reasonable value of "short term" where that wouldn't be the case. Then again, I've lived in my current building for over a year, and I don't know anyone in the building. A few I recognize on sight, but we all tend to keep to ourselves. I'd consider them "strangers" too.