4 ms·

When I try to take a really broad view of it, I reason that people demand a place to sleep every night and so there's really no reason to think that airbnb and

by arebop 10y ago

When I try to take a really broad view of it, I reason that people demand a place to sleep every night and so there's really no reason to think that airbnb and long-term housing are natural enemies. There's a limit to demand for bedrooms. Apparently, there are shortages of both long-term housing and temporary places to stay. Partitioning the physical buildings into one or the other class does not help match supply to demand. Of course it can help move the shortage's effect between the two kinds of use, but that's only an issue to the extent that there are shortages for both kinds of use. Really we should fix the shortages, not just try to change the identity of the people who lose out. When we look at AirBnB specifically, there are anecdotes about its negative effect on housing supply. I have also seen some quantitative/statistical evidence about it, and that shows that it has negligible effect on housing availability. AirBnB is just far too small to have a noticeable impact on housing supply in San Francisco (and the same goes for the handful of other cities whose stats I've seen). So even if you don't buy the theoretical argument about the effect of fragmenting resources on efficient allocation, from a practical point of view it quickly becomes obvious that AirBnB bans are not worthy of serious consideration as a solution to housing shortages. So the most persuasive motivation for AirBnB bans are the arguments about noise, building security, and so forth. I don't personally find these arguments persuasive either but at least they are debatable.

Elgrad 10y ago
Do you have a source for those figures? I ask because most of the, admittedly incredibly brief, research that I've done indicates that it does have a significant effect on housing. [1] http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_10_Lee.pdf http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_10_Lee... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/27/airbnb-new-york-city-housing-stock-reduction-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/27/airbnb-new-y...
- arebop 10y ago
  I don't have a citation ready for SF; my recollection from the last anti-airbnb ballot campaign that a leading opponent of airbnb (Campos) claimed a figure between 1999 and 3000 units listed on airbnb. http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/#1 http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/... claims the true figure is closer to 350 units. The higher estimate constitutes less than 0.8% of the 390000 unit supply, comparable to approving just one or two development projects [http://sf.curbed.com/building/1201/trinity-place http://sf.curbed.com/building/1201/trinity-place]. The Chief Economist in SF estimated that a supply increase of 100000 units (at least 33 airbnbs) would be needed to have a significant impact on prices [http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-housing-field-could-take-100000-new-units/Content?oid=2703869 http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-hous...]. Your [2] claims that 8000 units = 10% of the housing supply in NYC. I find this claim incredible. Your [1] claims that more than 12% of housing units in the LA neighborhood of Venice Beach are airbnbs. Given that the average American gets 16 days of vacation per year [http://theweek.com/articles/463897/americas-war-vacation-by-numbers http://theweek.com/articles/463897/americas-war-vacation-by-...] I suppose we should expect about 5% of bedrooms to be allocated to short-term use. AirBnB's market share is less than 100% of those 5%. On the other hand, LA is relatively popular as a tourist destination so we should expect more airbnbs than Topeka KS. So that claim seems plausible to me. This report goes on to project from a model that these Venice Beach airbnbs, if returned to the long-term rental market, would lower prices by $67/month from $2680, a reduction of 2.5%. The same author notes that in recent years, prices rental prices have increased by 7.3% per year. It appears that the "solution" of banning AirBnB amounts to turning back the clock on the problem by just a few months.
triplesec 10y ago
You miss a huge issue in your analysis: Airbnb rentals are Second places to sleep every night, like hotels. They are vacation rentals. In other words, for almost every AirBnb bed, there is another bed elsehwere in the world lying empty. So people don't get to sleep in these beds otherwise. And this of course means that it's the less-well-off who suffer. And the benefits go to those who can throw their money around, to the detriment of basic human existence.

by arebop 10y ago

Elgrad 10y ago

Do you have a source for those figures? I ask because most of the, admittedly incredibly brief, research that I've done indicates that it does have a significant effect on housing. [1] http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_10_Lee.pdf http://harvardlpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/10.1_10_Lee... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/27/airbnb-new-york-city-housing-stock-reduction-study https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/27/airbnb-new-y...

arebop 10y ago
I don't have a citation ready for SF; my recollection from the last anti-airbnb ballot campaign that a leading opponent of airbnb (Campos) claimed a figure between 1999 and 3000 units listed on airbnb. http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/#1 http://www.sfchronicle.com/airbnb-impact-san-francisco-2015/... claims the true figure is closer to 350 units. The higher estimate constitutes less than 0.8% of the 390000 unit supply, comparable to approving just one or two development projects [http://sf.curbed.com/building/1201/trinity-place http://sf.curbed.com/building/1201/trinity-place]. The Chief Economist in SF estimated that a supply increase of 100000 units (at least 33 airbnbs) would be needed to have a significant impact on prices [http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-housing-field-could-take-100000-new-units/Content?oid=2703869 http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/leveling-sf-hous...]. Your [2] claims that 8000 units = 10% of the housing supply in NYC. I find this claim incredible. Your [1] claims that more than 12% of housing units in the LA neighborhood of Venice Beach are airbnbs. Given that the average American gets 16 days of vacation per year [http://theweek.com/articles/463897/americas-war-vacation-by-numbers http://theweek.com/articles/463897/americas-war-vacation-by-...] I suppose we should expect about 5% of bedrooms to be allocated to short-term use. AirBnB's market share is less than 100% of those 5%. On the other hand, LA is relatively popular as a tourist destination so we should expect more airbnbs than Topeka KS. So that claim seems plausible to me. This report goes on to project from a model that these Venice Beach airbnbs, if returned to the long-term rental market, would lower prices by $67/month from $2680, a reduction of 2.5%. The same author notes that in recent years, prices rental prices have increased by 7.3% per year. It appears that the "solution" of banning AirBnB amounts to turning back the clock on the problem by just a few months.

triplesec 10y ago

You miss a huge issue in your analysis: Airbnb rentals are Second places to sleep every night, like hotels. They are vacation rentals. In other words, for almost every AirBnb bed, there is another bed elsehwere in the world lying empty. So people don't get to sleep in these beds otherwise. And this of course means that it's the less-well-off who suffer. And the benefits go to those who can throw their money around, to the detriment of basic human existence.