4 ms·

Negative externalities. It's easy to imagine global utility decreasing (e.g. from the permanent resident's dissatisfaction with living next to short term rental

by 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.)
    - switch007 10y ago
      Your neighbour is going to supervise their Grindr date (probably much more...intimately than any other kind of guest) and not leave them in the apartment for a long weekend while your neighbour leaves town. That's my scant understanding of Grindr, anyway !
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      Grindr guests are personal guests, not customers of a service like Airbnb guests. As another person stated, the Airbnb guest is likely to be unsupervised, and has no vested interest in keeping the house and local community nice other than general decency and their Airbnb reputation. This is enough for many visitors, but there are a portion that don't care. Are you willing to admit that this may change the local community dynamics in a negative way for long term residents? I use Airbnb. I think it's great (from my perspective). However, I understand why some may want to limit it.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I agree that lots of things might change "local community dynamics" - for example, a gay neighbor having a parade of flamboyantly dressed houseguests can do the same thing. So can letting in neighbors of a different race. I guess I'm just the kind of person who believes that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own bedroom.
- idiot_stick 10y ago
  >When did this become a valid reason to regulate an activity? When you operate on the assumption that people aren't affected by AirBnB rentals in their buildings this is an easy argument. But sometimes people are affected.
- someguydave 10y ago
  In the US the answer is clearly 'yes you can regulate his private business'. In many US cities renting out a home is a violation of local zoning code. The government places a large number of restrictions on what you can do on 'your land.'
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Salviati: "It is morally wrong to pass a law saying my neighbor cannot rent his home to negroes, and those advocating for such laws are bad people." Simplicio (historical): "In the US the answer is clearly 'yes you can regulate his private business'. In many US cities renting out a home to a negro is a violation of the local zoning code." Do you see the fallacy of this argument? I'm arguing "should", not "is".
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      To clarify, you don't think that any city should regulate people selling short term stays in their private residence, in any way?
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I think if they do regulate it, they should have a good reason for it. All the reasons cited in this thread seem pretty bad. I say they are bad because when you apply the same reasons to regulating anything other than AirBnB, suddenly they don't seem like good reasons at all.
        dwaltrip 10y ago
        I just responded to one of your examples elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13680648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13680648
        someguydave 10y ago
        >they should have a good reason for it. The Supreme Court says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review In order to justify the New Deal the Court lowered its standard for state infringement of liberty to: "You just need any reason for this law, it doesn't have to be a good one"
someguydave 10y ago
>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. It's also easy to imagine that the land owner's rent gains are higher than the "externalities" endured by the neighbors. I'm skeptical that the government can find a good tradeoff here.

by consz 10y ago

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.)
  - switch007 10y ago
    Your neighbour is going to supervise their Grindr date (probably much more...intimately than any other kind of guest) and not leave them in the apartment for a long weekend while your neighbour leaves town. That's my scant understanding of Grindr, anyway !
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    Grindr guests are personal guests, not customers of a service like Airbnb guests. As another person stated, the Airbnb guest is likely to be unsupervised, and has no vested interest in keeping the house and local community nice other than general decency and their Airbnb reputation. This is enough for many visitors, but there are a portion that don't care. Are you willing to admit that this may change the local community dynamics in a negative way for long term residents? I use Airbnb. I think it's great (from my perspective). However, I understand why some may want to limit it.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I agree that lots of things might change "local community dynamics" - for example, a gay neighbor having a parade of flamboyantly dressed houseguests can do the same thing. So can letting in neighbors of a different race. I guess I'm just the kind of person who believes that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own bedroom.
idiot_stick 10y ago
>When did this become a valid reason to regulate an activity? When you operate on the assumption that people aren't affected by AirBnB rentals in their buildings this is an easy argument. But sometimes people are affected.
someguydave 10y ago
In the US the answer is clearly 'yes you can regulate his private business'. In many US cities renting out a home is a violation of local zoning code. The government places a large number of restrictions on what you can do on 'your land.'
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Salviati: "It is morally wrong to pass a law saying my neighbor cannot rent his home to negroes, and those advocating for such laws are bad people." Simplicio (historical): "In the US the answer is clearly 'yes you can regulate his private business'. In many US cities renting out a home to a negro is a violation of the local zoning code." Do you see the fallacy of this argument? I'm arguing "should", not "is".
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    To clarify, you don't think that any city should regulate people selling short term stays in their private residence, in any way?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I think if they do regulate it, they should have a good reason for it. All the reasons cited in this thread seem pretty bad. I say they are bad because when you apply the same reasons to regulating anything other than AirBnB, suddenly they don't seem like good reasons at all.
      - dwaltrip 10y ago
        I just responded to one of your examples elsewhere in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13680648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13680648
      - someguydave 10y ago
        >they should have a good reason for it. The Supreme Court says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review In order to justify the New Deal the Court lowered its standard for state infringement of liberty to: "You just need any reason for this law, it doesn't have to be a good one"

someguydave 10y ago

>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. It's also easy to imagine that the land owner's rent gains are higher than the "externalities" endured by the neighbors. I'm skeptical that the government can find a good tradeoff here.