7 ms·

Lots of platitudes in there, but not much substance. How about you tell me how Airbnb is contributing to vacancies in crowded real estate markets? Or what you

by jbob2000 9y ago

Lots of platitudes in there, but not much substance. How about you tell me how Airbnb is contributing to vacancies in crowded real estate markets? Or what you are doing about cities introducing regulations that will make Airbnb essentially the same as a hotel? Why are condos starting to ban Airbnb rentals? It kind of feels like Airbnb knows they are on shaky ground and this memo is step 1 of reinventing themselves to prevent their collapse.

bdamm 9y ago
Why should AirBNB take on ownership of the problem of vacancies in crowded real estate markets? AirBNB is, if anything, helping this problem in many cases by allowing people to compensate for the expense of living in a crowded real estate market by renting out rooms. Also, AirBNB isn't the only game in town any more and they need to compete with the likes of Vacasa among others. The regulation question is a real issue for AirBNB and I agree that they ought to be telling their shareholders and their hosts what their plan is.
- vkou 9y ago
  > Why should AirBNB take on ownership of the problem of vacancies in crowded real estate markets? Because their business actively contributes to these shortages, and the associated human suffering... While evading hospitality taxes. > AirBNB is, if anything, helping this problem in many cases by allowing people to compensate for the expense of living in a crowded real estate market by renting out rooms That's a minority use case. More commonly, landlords take rentals off the market, to let out on AirBnB.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    >Because their business actively contributes to these shortages NIMBY regulators are the ONLY significant contributor to long term shortages in affordable housing. In other words, the local voters are the ones responsible for their own pain.
    - vkou 9y ago
      NIMBY is only a small part of why boom cities do not have enough high-density, affordable housing exists. Not every metro area in the United States is as myopic as the Bay.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        What are the other problems then?
        vkou 9y ago
        Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns, razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos, setbacks, foreign millionaires, local millionaires, rent control, parking requirements, inadequate transit, low land taxes, airbnb, demand for school districts, the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation... I could go on and on. There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Blaming voters for this situation is like saying that the 2008 financial crisis happened because of voters. Technically correct (We could have - in theory - elected someone who could have appointed someone who could have appointed someone who could have stopped that particular disaster), but not in any meaningful sense.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        >Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns The developers who provide overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns are generally the ones trying to build new housing. So they're the opposition to the NIMBYs, they're your friends in this case. >razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos If the profit margins are razor thin, then there's probably an over-supply. >setbacks lolwut? >foreign millionaires, local millionaires The best way to fight them is to allow supply to increase at a rate to meet the market demands such that buying property and leaving it empty is a bad idea. Or at least isn't harmful to others who will still be able to find supply. >rent control This is again, something the local voters have done to themselves. >parking requirements If you build a new condo or whatever that has no parking you're probably going to go broke because no one will want to purchase your condos. >inadequate transit, low land taxes, demand for school districts Luckily we'll be building a bunch of new expensive properties who will be paying new higher taxes. Or better yet, we'll have AirBnB places that pay the same taxes, and bring in tourists who will pay sales taxes, etc. but won't be using most of that infrastructure like public schools. >the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, This is not something that stops new development, unles those average homeowners are the NIMBYs. >limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation. This certainly isn't something that stops new development. In fact, it should encourage it. >There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Sure, there's no SINGLE lever, but the biggest lever that will have the most impact is to let the market decide what kind of housing and how much to provide.
- dbmikus 9y ago
  In places with limited rental properties, some people have got leases on apartments and are then renting them out via AirBnB instead of living in them. This decreases the total amount of apartments available for long-term renters. In NYC, you can rent a room out as AirBnb if either of the following: 1. the rental is long term 2. you are present in the apartment while the guest is staying The issue with the third case: 3. short term rental while owner is absent is that the apartment is a secondary rental unit for the host/owner and is not a primary residence for the guest. Rich people can afford this, poorer people cannot. Hence the problem. That is when AirBnB does not help the housing market and some cities have rightfully legislated against that case.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    Not only that, but it appears AirBNB doesn't discourage this practice and there have been some articles claiming they actively encourage people who turn rentals into AirBNBs. AirBNB doesn't seem as bad as Uber, but there have been many questionable decisions .. and cases like the London guy whose guests threw a massive party and caused like 3k GBP in damages: http://observer.com/2017/03/airbnb-nda-damage-in-london-after-drug-party/ http://observer.com/2017/03/airbnb-nda-damage-in-london-afte... No where in this letters were the words, "We've made some mistakes" or "we need to get better" ... unless I missed it? It's like they're not even addressing serious customer issues.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      It's an interesting contrast. Uber was much more problematic in terms of culture (at least until recently, if you're inclined to be generous) and they seem to have been more directly involved in actively thwarting laws, etc. And they've created this big gig economy workforce that is barely scraping by in most cases. On the other hand, with relatively few exceptions, existing taxi companies--and especially those built around medallion monopolies--were extremely user-friendly and generally pretty awful in a lot of places. AirBnB, on the other hand, seems at least more reasonable as a company but has still turned largely a blind eye to its hosts evading their legal requirements in a way that's arguably much more damaging to communities than Uber.
  - 9y ago
- jbob2000 9y ago
  I am sure there are people out there renting their spare bedroom, but they aren't the problem. The problem are the "pseudo-hoteliers", who purchase multiple condos and homes and rent them exclusively on Airbnb. I want Airbnb to get away from those users, those are the vacancies that cause problems; entire condo floors empty for weeks at a time, meanwhile, there's nothing but run-down apartments and basements listed for long-term rental. The regulation question is huge. Airbnb can't survive thousands of cities implementing different kinds of regulations.

bdamm 9y ago

Why should AirBNB take on ownership of the problem of vacancies in crowded real estate markets? AirBNB is, if anything, helping this problem in many cases by allowing people to compensate for the expense of living in a crowded real estate market by renting out rooms. Also, AirBNB isn't the only game in town any more and they need to compete with the likes of Vacasa among others. The regulation question is a real issue for AirBNB and I agree that they ought to be telling their shareholders and their hosts what their plan is.

vkou 9y ago
> Why should AirBNB take on ownership of the problem of vacancies in crowded real estate markets? Because their business actively contributes to these shortages, and the associated human suffering... While evading hospitality taxes. > AirBNB is, if anything, helping this problem in many cases by allowing people to compensate for the expense of living in a crowded real estate market by renting out rooms That's a minority use case. More commonly, landlords take rentals off the market, to let out on AirBnB.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >Because their business actively contributes to these shortages NIMBY regulators are the ONLY significant contributor to long term shortages in affordable housing. In other words, the local voters are the ones responsible for their own pain.
  - vkou 9y ago
    NIMBY is only a small part of why boom cities do not have enough high-density, affordable housing exists. Not every metro area in the United States is as myopic as the Bay.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      What are the other problems then?
      - vkou 9y ago
        Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns, razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos, setbacks, foreign millionaires, local millionaires, rent control, parking requirements, inadequate transit, low land taxes, airbnb, demand for school districts, the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation... I could go on and on. There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Blaming voters for this situation is like saying that the 2008 financial crisis happened because of voters. Technically correct (We could have - in theory - elected someone who could have appointed someone who could have appointed someone who could have stopped that particular disaster), but not in any meaningful sense.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        >Developers providing overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns The developers who provide overwhelming amounts of funding for political campaigns are generally the ones trying to build new housing. So they're the opposition to the NIMBYs, they're your friends in this case. >razor-thin profit margins on non-luxury condos If the profit margins are razor thin, then there's probably an over-supply. >setbacks lolwut? >foreign millionaires, local millionaires The best way to fight them is to allow supply to increase at a rate to meet the market demands such that buying property and leaving it empty is a bad idea. Or at least isn't harmful to others who will still be able to find supply. >rent control This is again, something the local voters have done to themselves. >parking requirements If you build a new condo or whatever that has no parking you're probably going to go broke because no one will want to purchase your condos. >inadequate transit, low land taxes, demand for school districts Luckily we'll be building a bunch of new expensive properties who will be paying new higher taxes. Or better yet, we'll have AirBnB places that pay the same taxes, and bring in tourists who will pay sales taxes, etc. but won't be using most of that infrastructure like public schools. >the average homeowner having most of their wealth locked in a single illiquid asset, This is not something that stops new development, unles those average homeowners are the NIMBYs. >limited capital gains taxes on property appreciation. This certainly isn't something that stops new development. In fact, it should encourage it. >There is no single lever that you can turn, and solve the housing problems of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or NYC. Sure, there's no SINGLE lever, but the biggest lever that will have the most impact is to let the market decide what kind of housing and how much to provide.
dbmikus 9y ago
In places with limited rental properties, some people have got leases on apartments and are then renting them out via AirBnB instead of living in them. This decreases the total amount of apartments available for long-term renters. In NYC, you can rent a room out as AirBnb if either of the following: 1. the rental is long term 2. you are present in the apartment while the guest is staying The issue with the third case: 3. short term rental while owner is absent is that the apartment is a secondary rental unit for the host/owner and is not a primary residence for the guest. Rich people can afford this, poorer people cannot. Hence the problem. That is when AirBnB does not help the housing market and some cities have rightfully legislated against that case.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Not only that, but it appears AirBNB doesn't discourage this practice and there have been some articles claiming they actively encourage people who turn rentals into AirBNBs. AirBNB doesn't seem as bad as Uber, but there have been many questionable decisions .. and cases like the London guy whose guests threw a massive party and caused like 3k GBP in damages: http://observer.com/2017/03/airbnb-nda-damage-in-london-after-drug-party/ http://observer.com/2017/03/airbnb-nda-damage-in-london-afte... No where in this letters were the words, "We've made some mistakes" or "we need to get better" ... unless I missed it? It's like they're not even addressing serious customer issues.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    It's an interesting contrast. Uber was much more problematic in terms of culture (at least until recently, if you're inclined to be generous) and they seem to have been more directly involved in actively thwarting laws, etc. And they've created this big gig economy workforce that is barely scraping by in most cases. On the other hand, with relatively few exceptions, existing taxi companies--and especially those built around medallion monopolies--were extremely user-friendly and generally pretty awful in a lot of places. AirBnB, on the other hand, seems at least more reasonable as a company but has still turned largely a blind eye to its hosts evading their legal requirements in a way that's arguably much more damaging to communities than Uber.
- 9y ago
jbob2000 9y ago
I am sure there are people out there renting their spare bedroom, but they aren't the problem. The problem are the "pseudo-hoteliers", who purchase multiple condos and homes and rent them exclusively on Airbnb. I want Airbnb to get away from those users, those are the vacancies that cause problems; entire condo floors empty for weeks at a time, meanwhile, there's nothing but run-down apartments and basements listed for long-term rental. The regulation question is huge. Airbnb can't survive thousands of cities implementing different kinds of regulations.