4 ms·
Thousands Violate SF Housing Laws Using Airbnb, Few Face Penalties
- fasteddie 10y agoI'm conflicted on the SF AirBnB issues because on one end I'm part of the "any more housing is good housing" crowd but at the same time I'd like AirBnB to succeed (as a user when I travel from SF) and I'm afraid of downstream consequences of heavy regulations in its host city. I've more or less accepted I'm a hypocrite on the issue, or at least selfish on it.
- ncr100 10y agoWhat percent do you estimate of AirBnB landlords would withdraw from AirBnB if they were further encouraged by AirBnB to abide by the law?
- sna1l 10y ago> Since February of last year, 1,281 other hosts have also registered with the city. However, that number is a far reach from the 7,046 hosts that Airbnb acknowledges are listing more than 9,000 properties in San Francisco. That means at least 82 percent of hosts are breaking the law. I agree that Airbnb hosts not following regulations are probably contributing to the supply crisis. But 9000 properties? Isn't SF in need of 10s of thousands of units if not even more than that to match demand? I think SF's ineptitude around permits, zoning, and the "not in my backyard" mentality is a way bigger issue.
- camel_gopher 10y agoI registered with the office of short term rental close to six months ago. Still haven't heard back from them. Ditto for a few other people I know.
- brbsix 10y agoIf SF is going to be a NIMBY city, actively discouraging new development, violating property rights, and banning short-term rentals in a manner akin to some sort of socialist state, I guess that's just the shit we're used to here. But to restrict supply, implement all sorts of price controls, and then engage in this sort of selective (or nonexistent) enforcement feels so utterly corrupt. Though I suppose expecting any sort of consistency on the matter is asking too much.