4 ms·
IMHO all the regulation to be done against multi-property landlords should be created at the state-level, I mean, decoupled from any Airbnb-like infrastructure
by knocte 11y ago
IMHO all the regulation to be done against multi-property landlords should be created at the state-level, I mean, decoupled from any Airbnb-like infrastructure ("don't shoot the messenger!").
That is, the state has ultimately all the information regarding real-estate ownership. Creating laws that tax adequately the companies/individuals that own more than 1 property should be easy, and irrespective to how/if they monetize them.
Doing a regulation against AirBNB is ultimately going to hurt the real regular people that is being helped by this "sharing-economy", such as the ones that just rent their unique property (either because they have an extra bedroom or because their job required them to move to a different city where they bought their house, and therefore use their AirBNB income to pay the rent of a different apartment).
- abandonliberty 11y agoThey're not shooting the messenger. Proposition F >Limits short-term rentals of a unit to 75 days per year, regardless of whether rental is hosted or unhosted. >Requires proof that the unit’s owner authorizes using the unit as a short-term rental. >Requires short-term hosts to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit and the number of days the unit is rented >Mandates that the city post notice on buildings with a unit approved for short-term rentals and notify by mail owners, neighbors of the unit and interested neighborhood organizations. Source: Ballot Simplification Committee AirBnB created a market in an area where existing laws didn't apply. This is part of legislation catching up.
- knocte 11y agoThere you go, 75 days a year? That affects small-owners in the same way as multi-owners.
- incongruity 11y agoExcept that if it's truly about renting out something you already own (and likely attached to your house) then it still makes it possible. However, what it massively disincentivizes is buying property solely to use it for hosting on Air BnB (and thus preventing others from buying or renting the property for residential use).
- knocte 11y agoYes it disincentivizes that but it also penalizes people that need to rent their place to pay rent in a different place to where they bought the house originally (there are many reasons to not sell your house in this scenario).
- incongruity 11y agoGiven the market, they could either rent that place to a full-time tenant or sell it – the odds are strongly against them being underwater, given the market. Given the stated aims of increasing the supply of residential rentals/property ownership, I don't think this case is counter to the aim of the proposition.
- knocte 11y agoPeople generally think that landlords prefer renting via AirBNB instead of full-time renting because it provides more income. This is just one side of it. There are more advantages: - When the property is not rented, you can use it for yourself (imagine if you want to go back home from time to time to see your parents, then you block some spot in the calendar). - The property is not rented 100% of the time so then it deteriorates more slowly. Less maintenance costs. - There are less chances to get tenants that don't pay and still stay in the property.
- thedufer 11y agoIf they need to rent then they should do so. This defeats the point of one of the main complaints - that what should be full-time rental housing is being converted to higher-priced hotels, driving up already absurdly high costs for people who want to live in the affected cities.