4 ms·

Except when you neighbors are the ones renting out the apartment next to you on air bnb, and you have drunk noisy people bumping around next door all the time.

catshirt 9y ago
and no one in the equation killed you yet. :)
filoleg 9y ago
I don't see how it is different from having noisy drunk people as your permanent neighbors. Ultimately, your non-airbnb permanent neighbors are just as much of a stranger to you, with certain specific exceptions.
- flukus 9y ago
  Your permanent neighbors tend to be noisy and drunk occasionally, people renting an airbnb are on holidays and likely to be noisy and drunk, then a week later you'll get a new batch likely to be noisy and drunk.
  - baddox 9y ago
    But does anyone oppose reasonable rules for time-of-day-based noise levels in an apartment or neighborhood? It really doesn’t matter if your permanent neighbors or transient guests are the ones making the noise, either should cause the property owner/renter to get fined/evicted.
    - poorrights 9y ago
      What y’all apparently don’t understand is that people living somewhere permanently have a vested interest in not being dicks to their neighbors (for various reasons that you’re probably smart enough to divine if you dedicate just an iota of thought to it; we’re all smart people, yeah?). If you’re just going to leave in three days, you have no such restriction.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Good idea, but guess what? The Airbnb people are gone in the morning, they don’t really care!
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > But does anyone oppose reasonable rules for time-of-day-based noise levels in an apartment or neighborhood? Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced. Also, it's not a viable solution. There are a couple huge problems. First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees. Second, with notable exceptions, HOAs/land lords dislike playing mediator/enforcer (and for good reason -- see below). So rules are hard to make and harder to enforce. Third, there's a real cost imposed on any community that tries to legislate "be a normal neighbor". If you want an enumeration of the potential downsides of this approach, talk to anyone who has had a bad experience with an over-zealous HOA. You could try to make and enforce a set of rules in a way that solves the problem but doesn't drive normal neighbors insane with pedantic/vindictive rule-violation-reporting. But it turns out that's a rather hard set of rules to come up with/fairly enforce. It's just much easier and, frankly, more effective, to ban airbnb et al. I'm not opposed to apartment sharing on principle, and in fact my personal political philosophy should bias me toward defending the practice. But my actual experience makes me wary of buildings/neighborhoods that allow airbnb. If airbnb doesn't figure out a solution to this problem, they're going to face increasing resistance.
      - baddox 9y ago
        > Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced. I don't understand that argument. It might make months to establish a ban or effective enforcement of temporary tenants as well. Obviously that sucks, but I'm just trying to think about which rule would be more effective and reasonable. > First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees. Again, I don't understand. Those are the exact same options we have to disincentivize owners/renters taking in temporary tenants. What alternative enforcement mechanism are you suggesting? It seems like you're focusing on the difficulties in enforcing my suggestion without recognizing that literally the exact same difficulties exist in enforcing your suggestion.

catshirt 9y ago

and no one in the equation killed you yet. :)

filoleg 9y ago

I don't see how it is different from having noisy drunk people as your permanent neighbors. Ultimately, your non-airbnb permanent neighbors are just as much of a stranger to you, with certain specific exceptions.

flukus 9y ago
Your permanent neighbors tend to be noisy and drunk occasionally, people renting an airbnb are on holidays and likely to be noisy and drunk, then a week later you'll get a new batch likely to be noisy and drunk.
- baddox 9y ago
  But does anyone oppose reasonable rules for time-of-day-based noise levels in an apartment or neighborhood? It really doesn’t matter if your permanent neighbors or transient guests are the ones making the noise, either should cause the property owner/renter to get fined/evicted.
  - poorrights 9y ago
    What y’all apparently don’t understand is that people living somewhere permanently have a vested interest in not being dicks to their neighbors (for various reasons that you’re probably smart enough to divine if you dedicate just an iota of thought to it; we’re all smart people, yeah?). If you’re just going to leave in three days, you have no such restriction.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Good idea, but guess what? The Airbnb people are gone in the morning, they don’t really care!
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > But does anyone oppose reasonable rules for time-of-day-based noise levels in an apartment or neighborhood? Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced. Also, it's not a viable solution. There are a couple huge problems. First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees. Second, with notable exceptions, HOAs/land lords dislike playing mediator/enforcer (and for good reason -- see below). So rules are hard to make and harder to enforce. Third, there's a real cost imposed on any community that tries to legislate "be a normal neighbor". If you want an enumeration of the potential downsides of this approach, talk to anyone who has had a bad experience with an over-zealous HOA. You could try to make and enforce a set of rules in a way that solves the problem but doesn't drive normal neighbors insane with pedantic/vindictive rule-violation-reporting. But it turns out that's a rather hard set of rules to come up with/fairly enforce. It's just much easier and, frankly, more effective, to ban airbnb et al. I'm not opposed to apartment sharing on principle, and in fact my personal political philosophy should bias me toward defending the practice. But my actual experience makes me wary of buildings/neighborhoods that allow airbnb. If airbnb doesn't figure out a solution to this problem, they're going to face increasing resistance.
    - baddox 9y ago
      > Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced. I don't understand that argument. It might make months to establish a ban or effective enforcement of temporary tenants as well. Obviously that sucks, but I'm just trying to think about which rule would be more effective and reasonable. > First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees. Again, I don't understand. Those are the exact same options we have to disincentivize owners/renters taking in temporary tenants. What alternative enforcement mechanism are you suggesting? It seems like you're focusing on the difficulties in enforcing my suggestion without recognizing that literally the exact same difficulties exist in enforcing your suggestion.