5 ms·

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 dec

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.
kofejnik 9y ago
> This decreases the total amount of apartments available for long-term renters. I don't see why this is necessarily bad. If short-term renters provide better value to the owners, why should they be deprived of this opportunity?
- dbmikus 9y ago
  Because that decreases the supply of housing available for those that cannot afford secondary residencies. If there is not enough extra housing supply, you end up raising rent prices. If the market isn't creating enough housing for some reason or another, middle-class and lower-middle-class are left hung out to dry. This dichotomy bleeds over into arguments about welfare state, supply-side economics vs high upper income taxes, etc. You can argue that people should be able to create value and earn however possible, but I'm going to disagree with that view. I think regulation and limits are appropriate in some cases, this being one of them.
  - chii 9y ago
    There's a lot of ifs in your statement. I don't necessarily think that raising real-estate prices is a bad thing. It will encourage building of more real-estate. Laws that precent so artificially should be abolished. Using regulation to prevent a private owner from exploiting his property to the maximum degree ought to only be reserved for matters of commons (such as environmental polution/degredation etc).
- netsharc 9y ago
  In a libertarian world, of course it's winner takes all. Luckily we still have some governments (boo, government, right?) that actually care about their cities, and they prefer long term tax-paying community-contributing residents, not short term tourists. So, it's mostly local governments making rules that disallow AirBNB-style short-term rentals. Maybe if the government just wants to have a Disneyland with rich apartment owners who rent everything out and zero long-term residents, they'd go along with AirBNB, but then these people wouldn't be in government, they'd work as resort managers. And they'd be voted out of office and be replaced with people from the community who actually care about said community. Also, tourists go to a city to experience its vibe, it'd be kinda interesting if they go somewhere and all they see are other tourists.
conanbatt 9y ago
> some people have got leases on apartments and are then renting them out via AirBnB instead of living in them You are choosing one person over the other. More people are serviced through this mechanic. A lot more. You can argue that you want more long term tenants than short term tenants in a city, but thats a preference. In absolute value, having more units available for Airbnb service more people and more value, otherwise it wouldnt be profitable to do so. This is also a consequence of onerous legal responsibilities on long term leases. SF city government has to get their shit together for building more housing, not blaming that Airbnb is harming its constituents. (because it is, as visitors are not constituents of the city)

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.

kofejnik 9y ago

> This decreases the total amount of apartments available for long-term renters. I don't see why this is necessarily bad. If short-term renters provide better value to the owners, why should they be deprived of this opportunity?

dbmikus 9y ago
Because that decreases the supply of housing available for those that cannot afford secondary residencies. If there is not enough extra housing supply, you end up raising rent prices. If the market isn't creating enough housing for some reason or another, middle-class and lower-middle-class are left hung out to dry. This dichotomy bleeds over into arguments about welfare state, supply-side economics vs high upper income taxes, etc. You can argue that people should be able to create value and earn however possible, but I'm going to disagree with that view. I think regulation and limits are appropriate in some cases, this being one of them.
- chii 9y ago
  There's a lot of ifs in your statement. I don't necessarily think that raising real-estate prices is a bad thing. It will encourage building of more real-estate. Laws that precent so artificially should be abolished. Using regulation to prevent a private owner from exploiting his property to the maximum degree ought to only be reserved for matters of commons (such as environmental polution/degredation etc).
netsharc 9y ago
In a libertarian world, of course it's winner takes all. Luckily we still have some governments (boo, government, right?) that actually care about their cities, and they prefer long term tax-paying community-contributing residents, not short term tourists. So, it's mostly local governments making rules that disallow AirBNB-style short-term rentals. Maybe if the government just wants to have a Disneyland with rich apartment owners who rent everything out and zero long-term residents, they'd go along with AirBNB, but then these people wouldn't be in government, they'd work as resort managers. And they'd be voted out of office and be replaced with people from the community who actually care about said community. Also, tourists go to a city to experience its vibe, it'd be kinda interesting if they go somewhere and all they see are other tourists.

conanbatt 9y ago

> some people have got leases on apartments and are then renting them out via AirBnB instead of living in them You are choosing one person over the other. More people are serviced through this mechanic. A lot more. You can argue that you want more long term tenants than short term tenants in a city, but thats a preference. In absolute value, having more units available for Airbnb service more people and more value, otherwise it wouldnt be profitable to do so. This is also a consequence of onerous legal responsibilities on long term leases. SF city government has to get their shit together for building more housing, not blaming that Airbnb is harming its constituents. (because it is, as visitors are not constituents of the city)