3 ms·

Who cares what your neighbors want? Seriously. In the Seventeenth Century many American colonists were fleeing England due to religious persecution because th

Who cares what your neighbors want? Seriously. In the Seventeenth Century many American colonists were fleeing England due to religious persecution because their religion didn't happen to be the the dominant/majority held belief [1]. The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. The specific topic of tyranny of the majority and ways to combat it were discussed in the Federalist papers and, in my belief, is ultimately the reason the Founding Fathers structured American government the way it did (federation, checks and balances, republic, etc.). I am not trying to argue that AirBnB is good, but it's not bad because your neighbors don't like it. [1] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

randycupertino 10y ago
I'd rather my neighbors not run a crackhouse and a brothel on airbnb out of our building, thanks.
- nostromo 10y ago
  Well, you're in luck because both of those things are already illegal.
  - rahimnathwani 10y ago
    Some neighbours are excessively noisy or cause a nuisance in other ways. For a long-term neighbour, you can probably fix the problem within a few weeks, and it stays fixed. When you have a new 'neighbour' every day, the chance of having that problem in given year increase (as among a large group there will be some bad apples). Moreover, the existing methods of solving the problem won't work because (i) the offender will be replaced (maybe with a new offender, maybe not) by the time any enforcement action can be taken, and (ii) social pressure won't work on someone who knows they will be gone in a day or two. I'm not advocating a particular solution. But please recognise that laws and processes that were designed for dealing with long term neighbours don't necessarily serve the purpose well when those neighbours are changing every day.
    - areyousure 10y ago
      > Some neighbours are excessively noisy or cause a nuisance in other ways. For a long-term neighbour, you can probably fix the problem within a few weeks, and it stays fixed. I don't believe this is remotely true in San Francisco. It is essentially impossible to effectively solve such a problem, ie by eviction if necessary. In a long-term rental in San Francisco, I believe "an excessively noisy neighbor is forever". I live in nearby Oakland, with similar tenancy laws. I have in fact had a neighbor so abusive that I believe if he were an AirBnb tenant, I'd be able to have him gone before the end of his AirBnb stay. His behavior is so bad he might not even be able to ever get an AirBnb again afterwards; for example, he literally epoxied the locks of his apartment as he left. In any case, as an actual renter, he was able to stay much longer. My emails indicate that he was my neighbor AND abusive for over 2.5 months. (He eventually did something so bad that he was able to be evicted.)
pbreit 10y ago
There's a reason for commercial and residential zoning. There's a reason your landlord and HOA do not permit short term rentals.
colechristensen 10y ago
You're conflating religious persecution with your neighbors running a hotel. There's a difference. Zoning laws have existed for a long time, and unless you're pretty far towards the libertarian extreme, nobody really has a problem with them existing (they could be better, but that's a subtle point not a blunt hammer like you're trying to use)
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  What I was objecting to was the idea that the government should dictate what you do with your own "property" based on what the majority of your neighbors want. Zoning laws and city planning is not exactly the same as what is being implied by the comment I specifically responded to. I also was not intending to conflate religious persecution, only provide an example of where the opinion of the majority breaks down. In reference to the Federalist Papers, I meant to imply that it was my belief that these mob rule tendencies was why the Constitution specifically doesn't structure the U.S. as a Direct Democracy. And discussions on how to combat these tendencies via education and related points are particularly insightful. There is a fine line to walk with government regulation protecting greater social good (pollution laws, etc.) and the government restricting property rights as proxy for the desires of the many. If you buy a condo, I have not been convinced that you should not be able to rent it out short or long term. But I am definitely opposed to the idea that you be restricted from doing so because your neighbors don't want you to.
sp332 10y ago
The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. That's why I said "this is a case". Maybe it's a problem for a certain set of people and maybe it isn't. You have to listen to them.
- gshulegaard 10y ago
  This is the fallacy I am objecting to. If the majority of the people want to abolish the First Amendment in order to silence hate speech, the government absolutely should not listen the them. Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are discussed from various angles in the Federalist Papers and I believe were considered carefully when structuring the American government (in order to prevent them).
  - sp332 10y ago
    Last I checked, the ability to rent out your house wasn't a human right or a constitutional one. Are you against every kind of property zoning?
    - gshulegaard 10y ago
      Arguably, the ability to rent your house is a constitutional one: * https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution/ https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-und... There seems to be a common misconception about zoning laws. Zoning laws fall under city planning where placement of certain types of buildings in organized locations leads to a more efficient city. These laws typically address traffic flow, utilities, etc. So to forward the AirBnB context, the city zones an area as residential, a developer builds residences, and a private owner (again AirBnB context) purchases the property. From there I would contest that the city should have limited (if any) ability to limit or dictate how the now private owner choses to "use and dispose" of their personal property. Renting of the property does not violate the residential zoning...this would be as opposed to the owner tearing down their home to build an office sky scraper. But if a private owner buys a house, they should be able to choose how to use that house. And again, this is off topic from the original thing I objected to: whether or not your neighbors should be able to dictate through government how you can/should use/dispose of your personal property.

randycupertino 10y ago

I'd rather my neighbors not run a crackhouse and a brothel on airbnb out of our building, thanks.

nostromo 10y ago
Well, you're in luck because both of those things are already illegal.
- rahimnathwani 10y ago
  Some neighbours are excessively noisy or cause a nuisance in other ways. For a long-term neighbour, you can probably fix the problem within a few weeks, and it stays fixed. When you have a new 'neighbour' every day, the chance of having that problem in given year increase (as among a large group there will be some bad apples). Moreover, the existing methods of solving the problem won't work because (i) the offender will be replaced (maybe with a new offender, maybe not) by the time any enforcement action can be taken, and (ii) social pressure won't work on someone who knows they will be gone in a day or two. I'm not advocating a particular solution. But please recognise that laws and processes that were designed for dealing with long term neighbours don't necessarily serve the purpose well when those neighbours are changing every day.
  - areyousure 10y ago
    > Some neighbours are excessively noisy or cause a nuisance in other ways. For a long-term neighbour, you can probably fix the problem within a few weeks, and it stays fixed. I don't believe this is remotely true in San Francisco. It is essentially impossible to effectively solve such a problem, ie by eviction if necessary. In a long-term rental in San Francisco, I believe "an excessively noisy neighbor is forever". I live in nearby Oakland, with similar tenancy laws. I have in fact had a neighbor so abusive that I believe if he were an AirBnb tenant, I'd be able to have him gone before the end of his AirBnb stay. His behavior is so bad he might not even be able to ever get an AirBnb again afterwards; for example, he literally epoxied the locks of his apartment as he left. In any case, as an actual renter, he was able to stay much longer. My emails indicate that he was my neighbor AND abusive for over 2.5 months. (He eventually did something so bad that he was able to be evicted.)

pbreit 10y ago

There's a reason for commercial and residential zoning. There's a reason your landlord and HOA do not permit short term rentals.

colechristensen 10y ago

You're conflating religious persecution with your neighbors running a hotel. There's a difference. Zoning laws have existed for a long time, and unless you're pretty far towards the libertarian extreme, nobody really has a problem with them existing (they could be better, but that's a subtle point not a blunt hammer like you're trying to use)

gshulegaard 10y ago
What I was objecting to was the idea that the government should dictate what you do with your own "property" based on what the majority of your neighbors want. Zoning laws and city planning is not exactly the same as what is being implied by the comment I specifically responded to. I also was not intending to conflate religious persecution, only provide an example of where the opinion of the majority breaks down. In reference to the Federalist Papers, I meant to imply that it was my belief that these mob rule tendencies was why the Constitution specifically doesn't structure the U.S. as a Direct Democracy. And discussions on how to combat these tendencies via education and related points are particularly insightful. There is a fine line to walk with government regulation protecting greater social good (pollution laws, etc.) and the government restricting property rights as proxy for the desires of the many. If you buy a condo, I have not been convinced that you should not be able to rent it out short or long term. But I am definitely opposed to the idea that you be restricted from doing so because your neighbors don't want you to.

sp332 10y ago

The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. That's why I said "this is a case". Maybe it's a problem for a certain set of people and maybe it isn't. You have to listen to them.

gshulegaard 10y ago
This is the fallacy I am objecting to. If the majority of the people want to abolish the First Amendment in order to silence hate speech, the government absolutely should not listen the them. Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are discussed from various angles in the Federalist Papers and I believe were considered carefully when structuring the American government (in order to prevent them).
- sp332 10y ago
  Last I checked, the ability to rent out your house wasn't a human right or a constitutional one. Are you against every kind of property zoning?
  - gshulegaard 10y ago
    Arguably, the ability to rent your house is a constitutional one: * https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-under-the-constitution/ https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-und... There seems to be a common misconception about zoning laws. Zoning laws fall under city planning where placement of certain types of buildings in organized locations leads to a more efficient city. These laws typically address traffic flow, utilities, etc. So to forward the AirBnB context, the city zones an area as residential, a developer builds residences, and a private owner (again AirBnB context) purchases the property. From there I would contest that the city should have limited (if any) ability to limit or dictate how the now private owner choses to "use and dispose" of their personal property. Renting of the property does not violate the residential zoning...this would be as opposed to the owner tearing down their home to build an office sky scraper. But if a private owner buys a house, they should be able to choose how to use that house. And again, this is off topic from the original thing I objected to: whether or not your neighbors should be able to dictate through government how you can/should use/dispose of your personal property.