4 ms·

NIMBYs opposing high-density development during a housing shortage is a bad thing. NIMBYs opposing illegal hotels that exacerbate a housing shortage is a good

by gaur 11y ago

NIMBYs opposing high-density development during a housing shortage is a bad thing. NIMBYs opposing illegal hotels that exacerbate a housing shortage is a good thing.

eru 11y ago
How do they exacerbate a housing shortage? (Short term rentals are also rentals.)
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Long term rental apartments are removed from the long term rental market and turned into illegal short-term rentals on AirBnB. Owners/renters that do this often have several such properties. This is often done in areas with no shortage of hotel rooms because they can be rented at a lower cost (no tax, no requirement to follow regulations, no inspections, no conformity to hotel fire code, etc). So the long term rental market sees a decrease in available units due to some being illegally sublet as short term rentals. This exacerbates long term rental prices in areas where there is already a shortage of units.
  - grossvogel 11y ago
    ^^ YES ^^ I live in New Orleans, and this is my chief concern about short-term rentals. The guests can be obnoxious, sure, but that alone wouldn't have made this such a hot city-wide issue. The rental market has been changing very rapidly here, partly due to a recent influx of well-off young people, and it's causing a lot of anxiety about what the city will look like in the future.
  - geebee 11y ago
    Agreed. I'd also add that it isn't even just about rental prices, it's about an existential threat to the community. I've noticed that opposition to airbnb is highest in highly residential areas that are also appealing to tourists, partly because of the local culture. The left bank of Paris, various neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and the garden district and french quarter in New Orleans. What keeps these neighborhoods great is that the are still places where people are from. "Spare" bedrooms are actually occupied by non-rent generating children rather than revenue-generating boarders. Interesting people, long term residents, a community, exists. This is one reason why the french quarter in new orleans remains more interesting than the recreated french quarter in disneyland. Airbnb profits massively by converting housing that used to go to people who live in the community into tourist housing. They sell much more than housing, they sell the interestingness of the neighborhood, and the destroy a little bit of each time they do. Even the "spare room rental to make ends meet" model is a bit risky. This is the least objectionable aspect of airbnb, a local resident hosting people from other places, and making enough money to make ends meet. It's certainly the image airbnb likes to market. But even this does take long term housing off the market. I live in a 3br house in SF, and the two "spare" bedrooms are where my non-rent paying kids live. I don't think a family could be able to win a bidding war against someone who buys the house and factors in the rental income of putting the "spare" bedrooms on to airbnb year-round. SF is already down to under 14% families with children, and while airbnb is hardly the only factor, I think it makes thins worse, not better. And that's the best scenario. The worst is entire units or houses completely taken off the market for long term residents, and clearly that is also happening on a very large scale. Prop F lost in San Francisco, but a pretty large margin (about 55-45, which is a pretty solid win for airbnb), but keep in mind, spending was almost 20-1. If it takes a 20-1 funding ratio to win by 55-45, I actually like prop F's chances in anything approaching equal funding. That equal funding contest may never happen, but there's still plenty of fight left here. It's a shame that such a wonderful service (a family will be out for a couple of weeks on vacation, they rent their place out here and there) has become such an angry and divisive issue. These rental sites clearly have a good use within proper limits and regulations, maybe we'll get there eventually.
    - eru 11y ago
      Thanks. Apropos borders: see https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/13/boardinghouses-where-city-was-born/Hpstvjt0kj52ZMpjUOM5RJ/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/13/boardinghouses-...
      - geebee 11y ago
        Thanks for the link. My use of "borders" was a poor choice of words. The term means something different from what I was describing.

by gaur 11y ago

NIMBYs opposing high-density development during a housing shortage is a bad thing. NIMBYs opposing illegal hotels that exacerbate a housing shortage is a good thing.

eru 11y ago

How do they exacerbate a housing shortage? (Short term rentals are also rentals.)

JohnTHaller 11y ago
Long term rental apartments are removed from the long term rental market and turned into illegal short-term rentals on AirBnB. Owners/renters that do this often have several such properties. This is often done in areas with no shortage of hotel rooms because they can be rented at a lower cost (no tax, no requirement to follow regulations, no inspections, no conformity to hotel fire code, etc). So the long term rental market sees a decrease in available units due to some being illegally sublet as short term rentals. This exacerbates long term rental prices in areas where there is already a shortage of units.
- grossvogel 11y ago
  ^^ YES ^^ I live in New Orleans, and this is my chief concern about short-term rentals. The guests can be obnoxious, sure, but that alone wouldn't have made this such a hot city-wide issue. The rental market has been changing very rapidly here, partly due to a recent influx of well-off young people, and it's causing a lot of anxiety about what the city will look like in the future.
- geebee 11y ago
  Agreed. I'd also add that it isn't even just about rental prices, it's about an existential threat to the community. I've noticed that opposition to airbnb is highest in highly residential areas that are also appealing to tourists, partly because of the local culture. The left bank of Paris, various neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and the garden district and french quarter in New Orleans. What keeps these neighborhoods great is that the are still places where people are from. "Spare" bedrooms are actually occupied by non-rent generating children rather than revenue-generating boarders. Interesting people, long term residents, a community, exists. This is one reason why the french quarter in new orleans remains more interesting than the recreated french quarter in disneyland. Airbnb profits massively by converting housing that used to go to people who live in the community into tourist housing. They sell much more than housing, they sell the interestingness of the neighborhood, and the destroy a little bit of each time they do. Even the "spare room rental to make ends meet" model is a bit risky. This is the least objectionable aspect of airbnb, a local resident hosting people from other places, and making enough money to make ends meet. It's certainly the image airbnb likes to market. But even this does take long term housing off the market. I live in a 3br house in SF, and the two "spare" bedrooms are where my non-rent paying kids live. I don't think a family could be able to win a bidding war against someone who buys the house and factors in the rental income of putting the "spare" bedrooms on to airbnb year-round. SF is already down to under 14% families with children, and while airbnb is hardly the only factor, I think it makes thins worse, not better. And that's the best scenario. The worst is entire units or houses completely taken off the market for long term residents, and clearly that is also happening on a very large scale. Prop F lost in San Francisco, but a pretty large margin (about 55-45, which is a pretty solid win for airbnb), but keep in mind, spending was almost 20-1. If it takes a 20-1 funding ratio to win by 55-45, I actually like prop F's chances in anything approaching equal funding. That equal funding contest may never happen, but there's still plenty of fight left here. It's a shame that such a wonderful service (a family will be out for a couple of weeks on vacation, they rent their place out here and there) has become such an angry and divisive issue. These rental sites clearly have a good use within proper limits and regulations, maybe we'll get there eventually.
  - eru 11y ago
    Thanks. Apropos borders: see https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/13/boardinghouses-where-city-was-born/Hpstvjt0kj52ZMpjUOM5RJ/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/13/boardinghouses-...
    - geebee 11y ago
      Thanks for the link. My use of "borders" was a poor choice of words. The term means something different from what I was describing.