5 ms·

Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do, as I am sure you would insist

by CPLX 10y ago

Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do, as I am sure you would insist were they to open a concert venue or dog fighting arena.

3825 10y ago
> Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do, as I am sure you would insist were they to open a concert venue or dog fighting arena. Noise complaint is a valid argument up to a certain point. Of course, I don't want anyone to have a concert upstairs. Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Uber or Airbnb or many of the things they represent. However, we must agree that the ends do not justify the means. This is just one step away from FUD like "Oh, if we have Airbnb we might have {{insert trendy to hate -- black, Hispanic, Arabic, Chinese, Canadian}} people staying over for the weekend next door and who knows what they're going to do to me in my sleep". I think if you subscribe to this idea then we should throw the baby away with the bath water as well. Nobody is allowed to visit anyone in their homes. Absolutely no parties even if you own your home. Only the legal registered occupant may be present at any time (I guess we will add provisions for EMS and law enforcement). I will agree with you the day I can get a fellow passenger kicked out of a train or an aeroplane for failing to quiet their devil spawn that won't stop wailing for over n hours. I am not accusing you of malice but please realize that the anti-Airbnb rhetoric is no more of a "grass-roots" movement than the so-called "tea party movement". Yes, there are people with valid concerns. No, they are not the ones driving this train. It appears we share a common goal with "them" but we do not.
- mgkimsal 10y ago
  I think - hope - we see a crackdown from insurance companies as airbnb-style sharing becomes more common. They should have more data as to accidents/claims/etc. This is part of the 'free market' wrt sharing that hasn't really played out yet. Most people renting out their house are not telling their insurance companies that they're effectively running a business from their home, and this will effect claims/premiums.
morgante 10y ago
> Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do Why? I have a right to intervene if their behavior affects me (ie. noise) but I certainly don't have a right to decide what my neighbors do. If my neighbors want to host a swingers' party next door, so long as it's quiet then it's absolutely none of my business. Similarly, if they want to do short-term rentals, so long as noise levels are kept acceptably low I don't see what say I should have in the matter.
- CPLX 10y ago
  If they want to host a swingers party, advertise it on the internet, and charge admission that's an entirely different story. The idea that Airbnb is "sharing" is cute, but these are commercial transactions we're talking about, specifically short term lodging rentals. This not a free speech or free association issue as long as that's the case.
  - xapata 10y ago
    > advertise ... charge admission Why not just impose a fine for noisy crowds? Problem solved no matter what the cause. The commercial aspect of it is a red herring, as you'd be equally bothered by someone hosting frequent gatherings for their non-profit group.
willholloway 10y ago
That's an apples to oranges comparison. A short term rental is residential use, just like a long term rental is residential use. In both cases the property is used by people to live and sleep in. The question is does local government have the right to regulate the duration of a rental lease? I would argue it doesn't, and it's a blatant violation of sacred property rights for a government to take that power. The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew. There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days.
- vacri 10y ago
  > The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew. Because as we know, if there's one easy thing to get, it's "pay later" fine money from tourists. And if there's one thing that really sparks police springing into action, it's an urban noise complaint. > There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days. "$500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew" is a regulation - what twisted world is it where something involving the word 'curfew' isn't considered a regulation?
  - willholloway 10y ago
    So you are saying we can't enforce our existing regulations, so the answer is to create new regulations. I say enforce the existing, narrowly tailored regulations before creating new, broad ones.
    - vacri 10y ago
      So what are you going to do when tourists can't afford to immediately pay a $500 on-the-spot fine? Drag them off to jail? Are you really willing to jail people over a noise complaint? Your local Chamber of Commerce is going to love that. > narrowly tailored ... broad Obviously enforcement of the existing broad regulations isn't working, so we should create new narrowly tailored ones instead. This spin-doctoring stuff is fun!

by CPLX 10y ago

3825 10y ago

> Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do, as I am sure you would insist were they to open a concert venue or dog fighting arena. Noise complaint is a valid argument up to a certain point. Of course, I don't want anyone to have a concert upstairs. Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Uber or Airbnb or many of the things they represent. However, we must agree that the ends do not justify the means. This is just one step away from FUD like "Oh, if we have Airbnb we might have {{insert trendy to hate -- black, Hispanic, Arabic, Chinese, Canadian}} people staying over for the weekend next door and who knows what they're going to do to me in my sleep". I think if you subscribe to this idea then we should throw the baby away with the bath water as well. Nobody is allowed to visit anyone in their homes. Absolutely no parties even if you own your home. Only the legal registered occupant may be present at any time (I guess we will add provisions for EMS and law enforcement). I will agree with you the day I can get a fellow passenger kicked out of a train or an aeroplane for failing to quiet their devil spawn that won't stop wailing for over n hours. I am not accusing you of malice but please realize that the anti-Airbnb rhetoric is no more of a "grass-roots" movement than the so-called "tea party movement". Yes, there are people with valid concerns. No, they are not the ones driving this train. It appears we share a common goal with "them" but we do not.

mgkimsal 10y ago
I think - hope - we see a crackdown from insurance companies as airbnb-style sharing becomes more common. They should have more data as to accidents/claims/etc. This is part of the 'free market' wrt sharing that hasn't really played out yet. Most people renting out their house are not telling their insurance companies that they're effectively running a business from their home, and this will effect claims/premiums.

morgante 10y ago

> Of course you have a right to say who comes and goes in your neighbors properties and what kinds of things they are allowed to do Why? I have a right to intervene if their behavior affects me (ie. noise) but I certainly don't have a right to decide what my neighbors do. If my neighbors want to host a swingers' party next door, so long as it's quiet then it's absolutely none of my business. Similarly, if they want to do short-term rentals, so long as noise levels are kept acceptably low I don't see what say I should have in the matter.

CPLX 10y ago
If they want to host a swingers party, advertise it on the internet, and charge admission that's an entirely different story. The idea that Airbnb is "sharing" is cute, but these are commercial transactions we're talking about, specifically short term lodging rentals. This not a free speech or free association issue as long as that's the case.
- xapata 10y ago
  > advertise ... charge admission Why not just impose a fine for noisy crowds? Problem solved no matter what the cause. The commercial aspect of it is a red herring, as you'd be equally bothered by someone hosting frequent gatherings for their non-profit group.

willholloway 10y ago

That's an apples to oranges comparison. A short term rental is residential use, just like a long term rental is residential use. In both cases the property is used by people to live and sleep in. The question is does local government have the right to regulate the duration of a rental lease? I would argue it doesn't, and it's a blatant violation of sacred property rights for a government to take that power. The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew. There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days.

vacri 10y ago
> The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew. Because as we know, if there's one easy thing to get, it's "pay later" fine money from tourists. And if there's one thing that really sparks police springing into action, it's an urban noise complaint. > There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days. "$500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew" is a regulation - what twisted world is it where something involving the word 'curfew' isn't considered a regulation?
- willholloway 10y ago
  So you are saying we can't enforce our existing regulations, so the answer is to create new regulations. I say enforce the existing, narrowly tailored regulations before creating new, broad ones.
  - vacri 10y ago
    So what are you going to do when tourists can't afford to immediately pay a $500 on-the-spot fine? Drag them off to jail? Are you really willing to jail people over a noise complaint? Your local Chamber of Commerce is going to love that. > narrowly tailored ... broad Obviously enforcement of the existing broad regulations isn't working, so we should create new narrowly tailored ones instead. This spin-doctoring stuff is fun!