8 ms·

If the highest value use of apartments is short term rentals, why is it "sensible" to limit that use? I understand why rent seeking locals would favor this. Bu

If the highest value use of apartments is short term rentals, why is it "sensible" to limit that use? I understand why rent seeking locals would favor this. But how is this any different from, e.g., Austin cabbies ripping off the tourists and getting Uber banned?

charlesdm 10y ago
I have a friend who rents out apartments on Airbnb in London, and the other people in the building _HATE_ that there are constantly new people around.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I once rented a flat in a conservative housing society in Pune (for those unfamiliar, India has extremely Victorian attitudes to sex), and some other people living there _HATED_ the fact that I quietly enjoy the company of lady guests that I'm not married to. In the US I'm sure you can find people who _HATE_ when their neighbors enjoy the company of guests that they found on Grindr. Does that mean we should shut down Grindr (or prevent Grindr from giving 1 person more than 1 match/month) or pass laws against these activities?
jon-wood 10y ago
Its sensible to limit that use because otherwise you'll end up with entire cities in which no one can afford to live, which you need both to provide services to the tourists and to provide tax income to keep the city running.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Well no, you'll have cities with higher prices in the touristic core, and it'll just be people with lower incomes who get pushed out. That will also help with your second problem. You can pay for services by charging property taxes. since the value of land will go up (thanks to it being used for it's most productive use) and lower income people getting pushed out (such people are more likely to be a net drain on resources), you'll actually have more money to pay for services.
  - jon-wood 10y ago
    And as ever the people in the lowest paying jobs bear the brunt of it, now having to commute from the suburbs to get to minimum wage jobs serving people with money to burn.
consz 10y ago
Negative externalities. It's easy to imagine global utility decreasing (e.g. from the permanent resident's dissatisfaction with living next to short term rentals) despite it being marginally profitable for the property owner.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The negative externality is, from what I can tell, "I don't like it when my neighbor engages in activities in the privacy of his own home that don't affect me". When did this become a valid reason to regulate an activity? Can I use this as a reason to regulate other private activities as well? If not, why not?
  - wkrause 10y ago
    I guess for the same reason home owners associations exist. Personal choices that are visible in the communal space can affect property values and people's enjoyment of the area. For many living next to a constant stream of strangers is undesirable.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      There are lots of things people don't want to live next to. For example, lots of folks don't want to live near the wrong type of people. Typically we consider those desires morally invalid and not something to be supported. Why is "short term" a morally valid way to characterize the "wrong type of people"?
  - pg314 10y ago
    It's not your neighbor that engages in activities. It are random strangers with minimal vetting that will be gone the next day. Are you unable to see the difference and how that might affect you?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      A guest my neighbor met on Grindr is a random stranger with minimal vetting that will be gone the next day. Should we also regulate Grindr? I don't see any difference that matters, nor do I see the underlying moral principle that allows me to distinguish between one and the other. The principle you've stated clearly isn't it, unless you also favor regulating Grindr. (I'm deliberately choosing Grindr here in order to make my example conflict with left wing mood affiliation.)
kasey_junk 10y ago
One major issue is that apartments aren't designed the same way as hotels are. Everything from security to heating systems and garbage collection are different based on the intended use of a building. Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  The fact that there seem to be no major AirBnB disasters suggests that hotels are probably overdesigned, and this is all unnecessary. Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change. At one time people purchased homes assuming they weren't going to live next to negroes. Did they also have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change? If not, why not?
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    Because one is about how someone is born and one is about how they intend to use a thing? The idea that they are in any way equivalent is so preposterous I can only presume you are making a poor form rhetorical point of some sort.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      My point is that your argument is clearly incorrect - you don't actually find the same argument convincing when applied to a case where it clearly applies, but which contradicts your intuitions. I.e., it's a rationalization, not a reason.
      - dwaltrip 10y ago
        > when applied to a case where it clearly applies Typing these words doesn't remove the differences between the situations. "Desiring to rent out my apt to tourists" is not a protected class.
idiot_stick 10y ago
>If the highest value use of apartments is short term rentals, why is it "sensible" to limit that use? As long as you're paying for the externalities (which in most cases of AirBnb rentals, you aren't) then sure.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  What externalities? Please be specific.
someguydave 10y ago
I would bet good money that many people who want the state to prevent landlords from renting out their own apartments to strangers also do not want the state to prevent strangers from crossing the state's borders.

charlesdm 10y ago

I have a friend who rents out apartments on Airbnb in London, and the other people in the building _HATE_ that there are constantly new people around.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I once rented a flat in a conservative housing society in Pune (for those unfamiliar, India has extremely Victorian attitudes to sex), and some other people living there _HATED_ the fact that I quietly enjoy the company of lady guests that I'm not married to. In the US I'm sure you can find people who _HATE_ when their neighbors enjoy the company of guests that they found on Grindr. Does that mean we should shut down Grindr (or prevent Grindr from giving 1 person more than 1 match/month) or pass laws against these activities?

jon-wood 10y ago

Its sensible to limit that use because otherwise you'll end up with entire cities in which no one can afford to live, which you need both to provide services to the tourists and to provide tax income to keep the city running.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Well no, you'll have cities with higher prices in the touristic core, and it'll just be people with lower incomes who get pushed out. That will also help with your second problem. You can pay for services by charging property taxes. since the value of land will go up (thanks to it being used for it's most productive use) and lower income people getting pushed out (such people are more likely to be a net drain on resources), you'll actually have more money to pay for services.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  And as ever the people in the lowest paying jobs bear the brunt of it, now having to commute from the suburbs to get to minimum wage jobs serving people with money to burn.

consz 10y ago

Negative externalities. It's easy to imagine global utility decreasing (e.g. from the permanent resident's dissatisfaction with living next to short term rentals) despite it being marginally profitable for the property owner.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The negative externality is, from what I can tell, "I don't like it when my neighbor engages in activities in the privacy of his own home that don't affect me". When did this become a valid reason to regulate an activity? Can I use this as a reason to regulate other private activities as well? If not, why not?
- wkrause 10y ago
  I guess for the same reason home owners associations exist. Personal choices that are visible in the communal space can affect property values and people's enjoyment of the area. For many living next to a constant stream of strangers is undesirable.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    There are lots of things people don't want to live next to. For example, lots of folks don't want to live near the wrong type of people. Typically we consider those desires morally invalid and not something to be supported. Why is "short term" a morally valid way to characterize the "wrong type of people"?
- pg314 10y ago
  It's not your neighbor that engages in activities. It are random strangers with minimal vetting that will be gone the next day. Are you unable to see the difference and how that might affect you?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    A guest my neighbor met on Grindr is a random stranger with minimal vetting that will be gone the next day. Should we also regulate Grindr? I don't see any difference that matters, nor do I see the underlying moral principle that allows me to distinguish between one and the other. The principle you've stated clearly isn't it, unless you also favor regulating Grindr. (I'm deliberately choosing Grindr here in order to make my example conflict with left wing mood affiliation.)

kasey_junk 10y ago

One major issue is that apartments aren't designed the same way as hotels are. Everything from security to heating systems and garbage collection are different based on the intended use of a building. Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The fact that there seem to be no major AirBnB disasters suggests that hotels are probably overdesigned, and this is all unnecessary. Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change. At one time people purchased homes assuming they weren't going to live next to negroes. Did they also have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change? If not, why not?
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  Because one is about how someone is born and one is about how they intend to use a thing? The idea that they are in any way equivalent is so preposterous I can only presume you are making a poor form rhetorical point of some sort.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    My point is that your argument is clearly incorrect - you don't actually find the same argument convincing when applied to a case where it clearly applies, but which contradicts your intuitions. I.e., it's a rationalization, not a reason.
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      > when applied to a case where it clearly applies Typing these words doesn't remove the differences between the situations. "Desiring to rent out my apt to tourists" is not a protected class.

idiot_stick 10y ago

>If the highest value use of apartments is short term rentals, why is it "sensible" to limit that use? As long as you're paying for the externalities (which in most cases of AirBnb rentals, you aren't) then sure.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
What externalities? Please be specific.

someguydave 10y ago

I would bet good money that many people who want the state to prevent landlords from renting out their own apartments to strangers also do not want the state to prevent strangers from crossing the state's borders.