6 ms·

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. AirBNB is a blight on rural areas (I can speak to this because I reside in rural Scotland) where affordable rental

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. AirBNB is a blight on rural areas (I can speak to this because I reside in rural Scotland) where affordable rental properties are simply disappearing from the market. These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation.

humanrebar 9y ago
I want to point out that expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one. In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. In an urban area, you don't have a lot of options when rent goes up other than moving to a dangerous neighborhood or commuting from an inhumane distance.
- teh_klev 9y ago
  > expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one I fail to see the difference, maybe you could expand? > In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy Folks are seeking affordable rents because affordable (and habitable) property to buy is pretty much non-existent. > or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. Perhaps in your country, good luck with getting away with that in the UK. We've got some fairly strict planning rules that make that kinda thing more or less impossible. Also "renting a plot of land" for this type of use isn't really a thing here.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    Bah, UK is so small it’s easy to see how it can be a problem. America has so much land available out there, some of it is incredibly cheap the farther you are from civilization, even almost free. I think I could buy several rolling acres of land for a couple thousand bucks right now.
    - teh_klev 9y ago
      I can really only speak with experience with regards to Scotland here. The problem isn't that we don't have enough land to build on. The problem is that there are vast tracts of land owned by a few large estates (many of them owned by off-shored companies in the usual Caribbean tax havens) that will never normally be available for sale. The land is wasted and misused for the benefit of a few very rich folks who want to turn up and blow away pheasants and grouse with their shotguns. The remaining available/eligible land is held by large house builders in their "land banks". Some of these tracts of land have been off the market for years and years, yet nothing ever gets built on them until the house builder decides the time is right to screw the maximum price out of buyers. I'm kinda hoping that when Scotland does finally become independent we will solve these problems with radical land ownership reform.
      - beegeezuz 9y ago
        Waiting for independence is like waiting for Monday or New Year or whatever else. Problems need to be tackled now, otherwise they won't go away regardless if you become an independent country or not.
      - ajmurmann 9y ago
        Sounds like the situation is similar than to what a poster here is describing about NYC: AirBnB is taking away a tiny portion of housing, it matters a lot though because the government is making it hard to build because of zoning or similar constraints. We conclude it's easier to get rid of Airbnb than change what the government is doing although it's supposed to reorder us the people.
      - Notesureboutdat 9y ago
        you forgot to mention the main cause - the UK's absurd and highly restrictive planning regime.
      - woolvalley 9y ago
        Do you guys have value based property tax, or is it a situation like California with prop 13? I've heard in the UK you just have council tax, which is more about the cost of providing services than the value of the piece of land. Usually you deal with bad 'land hoarding' with a high enough property tax rate. And if you want to avoid effecting the old and the middle class, you add exemptions for primary residences.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > Perhaps in your country... Yes. That's what I was explaining. You can just do that in many rural areas of the U.S. That's the big difference compared to urban development. You don't need billion dollar loans and a lobbying firm to add solve the problem on the supply side. It's very common for semi-retired middle class people to buy undeveloped land with good highway access, subdivide it, add some housing, and flip it.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    We have Irish Travellers in the US, too, you know. They mainly stick to the east coast. Local police will publish warnings when they're coming through. They are likely the primary motivator for anti-caravan laws, the other being that caravans and trailer homes generally have negative curb appeal and depress nearby property values. But "rural" in the US and "rural" in the UK are orders of magnitude apart. There are individual ranches in Texas larger than whole counties in the UK. The kinds of nomadic people that provoke anti-camping laws require a certain population density to support their lifestyle, so in the US, it's usually the NIMBYs that try to ban certain kinds of dwellings on other people's land. It's a question of how many people would even know something is there. If you never even see your mail carrier, you're not going to have a problem erecting any sort of building you want. But if you have neighbors that can see your dwelling from theirs, they will be interested in your private business. So if you're in the middle of the wind farms and corn farms in northern Indiana, no one cares if you have a manufactured home on your land. If you're on undeveloped land just east of Denver, you can't even pitch a tent on your own property without a permit.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Nooo. Trailers are the country ghetto. Unlike houses they are depreciating assets. So if you are fortunate enough to own your land and dwelling, unlike a home the value curve trends towards zero. The land value is the only asset, and doesn’t build much wealth. Expensive rent in a rural area means people get pushed further away. In the medical practice that my mom worked at, employees commuted as far as 100 miles.
  - phil21 9y ago
    Housing structures don't (rarely) appreciate. In fact the opposite is true, as witnessed by my tax return each year. The land as you state is a different story. I love the idea of a disposable trailer home I could replace every 20-30 years with new technology, unfortunately due to social attitudes prefab homes are almost exclusively marketed and built for lower incomes.
    - sevensor 9y ago
      Isn't that the idea behind the tiny house? Upscale trailers?
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      Houses appreciate. Trailers do not. Trailers are like cars. Sorry my comment was ambiguous
      - srtjstjsj 9y ago
        Houses depreciate. Land appreciates
      - phil21 9y ago
        Houses never (read: rarely - exceptional cases exist) appreciate. Period. Full stop. The land itself does.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    There are always exceptions, but houses generally do not appreciate. Much like a car, they become outdated and wear out. With enough time and use, they even become completely uninhabitable. Each passing day sees less and less value in the home as it requires more and more cost to bring back up to pristine condition and costs start to compete with the value of a brand new home. Of course, if you keep your home in good repair and updated to modern standards, that will help retain value. But you're effectively selling a new home at that point, and the costs you have sunk into keeping in that way extend well beyond the original value. Land value is where you normally find the appreciation. The trouble with trailers in a trailer park is that you do not own the land, so what you bear is entirely structure depreciation.
branchless 9y ago
Agreed. And let's not forget that Airbnb isn't"the sharing economy", it's a website with images and text on it for landlords. No innovation, just exploitation. Silicon valley.
lmm 9y ago
If the price has gone up so much, there's a financial incentive to build more until supply matches demand and prices drop to previous levels. > These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. > This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation. A lot of people get a lot of joy out of holidaying somewhere like Scotland in the summer. When there are limited houses and a lot of people who want to use them, there will always be winners and losers. Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year?
- guelo 9y ago
  The end state of your efficient market fetish is that the lower classes will only be able to live in the least desirable areas, everywhere else will be reserved for the use of the richer classes.
- teh_klev 9y ago
  > Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? As residents, we're quite proud of our village and surrounding rural lot and deeply care about and appreciate what we have. Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). > Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year. Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.
mylons 9y ago
I spent a winter in Tahoma, CA. I was one of about 10 people in town for months.

humanrebar 9y ago

I want to point out that expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one. In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. In an urban area, you don't have a lot of options when rent goes up other than moving to a dangerous neighborhood or commuting from an inhumane distance.

teh_klev 9y ago
> expensive rent in a rural area is different than expensive rent in an urban one I fail to see the difference, maybe you could expand? > In a rural area, if it really comes down to it, people buy Folks are seeking affordable rents because affordable (and habitable) property to buy is pretty much non-existent. > or rent a plot of land and throw a prefab home or trailer on it. Perhaps in your country, good luck with getting away with that in the UK. We've got some fairly strict planning rules that make that kinda thing more or less impossible. Also "renting a plot of land" for this type of use isn't really a thing here.
- matte_black 9y ago
  Bah, UK is so small it’s easy to see how it can be a problem. America has so much land available out there, some of it is incredibly cheap the farther you are from civilization, even almost free. I think I could buy several rolling acres of land for a couple thousand bucks right now.
  - teh_klev 9y ago
    I can really only speak with experience with regards to Scotland here. The problem isn't that we don't have enough land to build on. The problem is that there are vast tracts of land owned by a few large estates (many of them owned by off-shored companies in the usual Caribbean tax havens) that will never normally be available for sale. The land is wasted and misused for the benefit of a few very rich folks who want to turn up and blow away pheasants and grouse with their shotguns. The remaining available/eligible land is held by large house builders in their "land banks". Some of these tracts of land have been off the market for years and years, yet nothing ever gets built on them until the house builder decides the time is right to screw the maximum price out of buyers. I'm kinda hoping that when Scotland does finally become independent we will solve these problems with radical land ownership reform.
    - beegeezuz 9y ago
      Waiting for independence is like waiting for Monday or New Year or whatever else. Problems need to be tackled now, otherwise they won't go away regardless if you become an independent country or not.
    - ajmurmann 9y ago
      Sounds like the situation is similar than to what a poster here is describing about NYC: AirBnB is taking away a tiny portion of housing, it matters a lot though because the government is making it hard to build because of zoning or similar constraints. We conclude it's easier to get rid of Airbnb than change what the government is doing although it's supposed to reorder us the people.
    - Notesureboutdat 9y ago
      you forgot to mention the main cause - the UK's absurd and highly restrictive planning regime.
    - woolvalley 9y ago
      Do you guys have value based property tax, or is it a situation like California with prop 13? I've heard in the UK you just have council tax, which is more about the cost of providing services than the value of the piece of land. Usually you deal with bad 'land hoarding' with a high enough property tax rate. And if you want to avoid effecting the old and the middle class, you add exemptions for primary residences.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Perhaps in your country... Yes. That's what I was explaining. You can just do that in many rural areas of the U.S. That's the big difference compared to urban development. You don't need billion dollar loans and a lobbying firm to add solve the problem on the supply side. It's very common for semi-retired middle class people to buy undeveloped land with good highway access, subdivide it, add some housing, and flip it.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  We have Irish Travellers in the US, too, you know. They mainly stick to the east coast. Local police will publish warnings when they're coming through. They are likely the primary motivator for anti-caravan laws, the other being that caravans and trailer homes generally have negative curb appeal and depress nearby property values. But "rural" in the US and "rural" in the UK are orders of magnitude apart. There are individual ranches in Texas larger than whole counties in the UK. The kinds of nomadic people that provoke anti-camping laws require a certain population density to support their lifestyle, so in the US, it's usually the NIMBYs that try to ban certain kinds of dwellings on other people's land. It's a question of how many people would even know something is there. If you never even see your mail carrier, you're not going to have a problem erecting any sort of building you want. But if you have neighbors that can see your dwelling from theirs, they will be interested in your private business. So if you're in the middle of the wind farms and corn farms in northern Indiana, no one cares if you have a manufactured home on your land. If you're on undeveloped land just east of Denver, you can't even pitch a tent on your own property without a permit.
Spooky23 9y ago
Nooo. Trailers are the country ghetto. Unlike houses they are depreciating assets. So if you are fortunate enough to own your land and dwelling, unlike a home the value curve trends towards zero. The land value is the only asset, and doesn’t build much wealth. Expensive rent in a rural area means people get pushed further away. In the medical practice that my mom worked at, employees commuted as far as 100 miles.
- phil21 9y ago
  Housing structures don't (rarely) appreciate. In fact the opposite is true, as witnessed by my tax return each year. The land as you state is a different story. I love the idea of a disposable trailer home I could replace every 20-30 years with new technology, unfortunately due to social attitudes prefab homes are almost exclusively marketed and built for lower incomes.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    Isn't that the idea behind the tiny house? Upscale trailers?
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Houses appreciate. Trailers do not. Trailers are like cars. Sorry my comment was ambiguous
    - srtjstjsj 9y ago
      Houses depreciate. Land appreciates
    - phil21 9y ago
      Houses never (read: rarely - exceptional cases exist) appreciate. Period. Full stop. The land itself does.
- randomdata 9y ago
  There are always exceptions, but houses generally do not appreciate. Much like a car, they become outdated and wear out. With enough time and use, they even become completely uninhabitable. Each passing day sees less and less value in the home as it requires more and more cost to bring back up to pristine condition and costs start to compete with the value of a brand new home. Of course, if you keep your home in good repair and updated to modern standards, that will help retain value. But you're effectively selling a new home at that point, and the costs you have sunk into keeping in that way extend well beyond the original value. Land value is where you normally find the appreciation. The trouble with trailers in a trailer park is that you do not own the land, so what you bear is entirely structure depreciation.

branchless 9y ago

Agreed. And let's not forget that Airbnb isn't"the sharing economy", it's a website with images and text on it for landlords. No innovation, just exploitation. Silicon valley.

lmm 9y ago

If the price has gone up so much, there's a financial incentive to build more until supply matches demand and prices drop to previous levels. > These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. > This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodation. A lot of people get a lot of joy out of holidaying somewhere like Scotland in the summer. When there are limited houses and a lot of people who want to use them, there will always be winners and losers. Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year?

guelo 9y ago
The end state of your efficient market fetish is that the lower classes will only be able to live in the least desirable areas, everywhere else will be reserved for the use of the richer classes.
teh_klev 9y ago
> Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? As residents, we're quite proud of our village and surrounding rural lot and deeply care about and appreciate what we have. Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year.
- lmm 9y ago
  > Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could? There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs). > Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year. Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.

mylons 9y ago

I spent a winter in Tahoma, CA. I was one of about 10 people in town for months.