3 ms·
Saying the neighbor is ipso facto harmed by short term subleasing is like saying that the value of currency is ipso facto damaged by creating more or it so that
by Canada 11y ago
Saying the neighbor is ipso facto harmed by short term subleasing is like saying that the value of currency is ipso facto damaged by creating more or it so that the share value of a company is ipso facto damaged by issuing more shares.
It's certainly true that if these things are done irresponsibly then bad things happen. And bad things do often happen, I'll give you that. But it's not necessarily true. How it's managed is what determines whether the outcome is good or bad and for whom.
When short term renters well behaved, then the neighbors aren't harmed at all. If any lease holder has the ability to sublet easily with support of the landlord then that is something of value. A landlord that gets involved like this is going to create an environment with incentives for good short term tenants.
I'd rather lease from a company that allows me to do that and also supports me in doing so. I'd rather lease from a company that actively manages subleases than one that sticks its head in the sand that pretends that isn't happening all the time.
Short term subleases are here to stay. Trying to stop them is like trying to stop piracy or illicit drug use. It's just not going to happen.
edit: also: To call what happens on airbnb an "unregulated hotel" is profoundly misguided. Have you ever lived for a significant period of time out of airbnb??
- tptacek 11y agoThere are restrictions on short-term rentals and on the places you can build hotels in virtually all cities precisely because the assumption you are making here about the impact of hotel tenants is faulty. I'm not sure why I'm meant to care that there are people that use Airbnb for long-term living arrangements. The modal Airbnb renter does not do that.
- Canada 11y agoThere are certain restrictions on illicit drugs too, but they don't work very well in practice. Everyone involved in such transactions has every incentive to do what they wanna do anyway. What this landlord is doing is the equivalent of saying, "People are going to do drugs. OK. You can sell drugs and you can consume drugs, I'm not going to stop you. I only demand to test their purity first. And if you hurt unrelated parties I'm going to hold the guilty party accountable." Now everyone has something to gain by playing by the rules. Sure, they have to give up something, but they get more than they give if they're honest. Once someone in a legal position of authority can get the parties to agree to play by the rules, that authority can do a lot to reduce, if not completely mitigate, the negative side effects.
- tptacek 11y agoSo what's an argument for this being a public policy win that would be persuasive to people who don't reject the whole concept of zoning as the real estate analog to the drug war?