5 ms·

Short term rentals do not diminish housing stock, and help a city get more tourism which is by all means good for the whole. Its one more case of locals that vo

Short term rentals do not diminish housing stock, and help a city get more tourism which is by all means good for the whole. Its one more case of locals that vote vs non-locals that dont, even if they are way more numerous. If Vancouver finds itself short of houses by whatever measure, they have to look elsewhere.

borne0 9y ago
>>Short term rentals do not diminish housing stock If houses that would otherwise be rented or occupied are being used for short term rentals how can this be true?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  The people that stay at short term rentals are also dwellers. They are taking up the time the longer term rentals aren't taking.
  - borne0 9y ago
    We disagree on the definition of dweller, cities require more than just vacation seekers to function. And the longer term renters aren't taking up those dwelling since it's more profitable for owners to rent out short term, but the reason that anyone wants to rent short term is because it's an interesting place to be, which it won't be if it's all people on vacation. I'll call this the Ibiza Quandary.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      It's no quandary at all, the visitors and the landlords agree. Only a minority disagrees. If the rate of visitors reaches a rate where where the occupancy rate of airbnbs is makes them less interesting than long term units, congratulations, you have found market equilibrium.
      - borne0 9y ago
        So people who simply want to live in a city near to where they work and their children go to school have to be subject to market corrections where a single massively financed pseudo-hotel can massively distort a major cost of living assignment? Ridiculous. This is where common-sense regulation is needed.
        conanbatt 9y ago
        Why do you call it distortion? Its the opposite: the distortion is having empty properties, hotel taxes and zoning. You make a weird argument: you mention the people that work in the city and want to live near it, and this argument has at least 2 flaws. The first one is that in a numbers game, the people that lose out on this exchange is a much smaller number than all the rest. That is, a small proportion of people see their conditions relatively worse because of how a third party does with their property. IF you put it up to a vote of all people involved, they would lose out big time. The second is that you dont take into consideration that airbnb has made it cheaper and easier to travel for people of that socio-economic status as well. Its not only hipsters and software engineers that user airbnb. You have to weigh in the benefit of the consumer.
        borne0 9y ago
        Your argument is absurd, the first sentence gives it away 'empty properties'. Vancouver has no empty properties.
        refurb 9y ago
        Then why do I hear so many stories about Chinese who buy properties in Vancouver and leave it vacant? Seems it's in the news every week.
        ersii 9y ago
        It seems unlikely that there are no empty properties what so ever in a big city like Vancouver, surely there must be some. Do you have any sort of data to back up your claim that there are no empty properties?
  - sov 9y ago
    You'd be correct iff a) the dwelling is occupied near-100% of the time AND b) hotels, hostels and similarly-zoned dwellings are routinely at capacity OR c) the dwelling rented is the principal residence of the owner. Do you have data to support this w.r.t. Vancouver?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > a) the dwelling is occupied near-100% That requirement is as sensible as saying that vancouver should outlaw residents from vacationing outside vancouver to ensure there are no vacant properties. Its not the goal to maximize each minute within a housing unit, thats not something you want to focus on. > b) hotels, hostels and similarly-zoned dwellings are routinely at capacity There is no need to look at such thing. In this case you are trying to look at each potential dwelling unit as an abstract unit and each resident as a unit, but they have their own differences and imperfections. Looking at such a metric will push you to think policies like moving long term residents to hotels! > Do you have data to support this w.r.t. Vancouver? I can tell you people travel a lot more because of airbnb, and that there are way more cities that don't care about airbnb at all because it doesnt affect their housing market significantly.
      - around_here 9y ago
        > That requirement is as sensible as saying that vancouver should outlaw residents from vacationing outside vancouver to ensure there are no vacant properties. Its not the goal to maximize each minute within a housing unit, thats not something you want to focus on. You do want people living in their homes for the vast majority of the time. You want them living there, hopefully being part of the community, getting invested in their lives there. The original argument is very sensible. > There is no need to look at such thing. In this case you are trying to look at each potential dwelling unit as an abstract unit and each resident as a unit, but they have their own differences and imperfections. Looking at such a metric will push you to think policies like moving long term residents to hotels! This is only sort of okay. No reasonable person who cares about housing would push to move long term residents to hotels. This is just a terrible premise to put forward. > I can tell you people travel a lot more because of airbnb, and that there are way more cities that don't care about airbnb at all because it doesnt affect their housing market significantly. Do they really? Like whom? AirBnB isn't particularly expensive, and all-in costs are more often than not more expensive than hotels. I don't know _anyone_ who says they travel more because of AirBnb.
vkou 9y ago
When I buy an apartment, and sublet it to a long-term tenant, one unit of housing exists. When I kick that long-term tenant out, and turn it into a AirBnB hotel, I just took one unit of housing from the market for locals, and added one unit of housing to the tourist market. > more tourism which is by all means good for the whole This is contentious. The city may be better off as a whole if it did not have 4,000 homeless people, many of whom were priced out of their apartments, due to tourism, foreign buyers, etc. To many people, more tourism brings little to no benefit, while a reduced housing stock brings much direct harm.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > This is contentious. The city may be better off as a whole if it did not have 4,000 homeless people, many of whom were priced out of their apartments, due to tourism, foreign buyers, etc. Homeless people existed in SF long before Airbnb existed. > To many people, more tourism brings little to no benefit, while a reduced housing stock brings much direct harm. Yes, to long term renters. There is no doubt that long term renters would prefer no short term renters existed. They would also prefer for all units to be rent controlled, or that landlords and property owners gave their properties for free.

borne0 9y ago

>>Short term rentals do not diminish housing stock If houses that would otherwise be rented or occupied are being used for short term rentals how can this be true?

conanbatt 9y ago
The people that stay at short term rentals are also dwellers. They are taking up the time the longer term rentals aren't taking.
- borne0 9y ago
  We disagree on the definition of dweller, cities require more than just vacation seekers to function. And the longer term renters aren't taking up those dwelling since it's more profitable for owners to rent out short term, but the reason that anyone wants to rent short term is because it's an interesting place to be, which it won't be if it's all people on vacation. I'll call this the Ibiza Quandary.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    It's no quandary at all, the visitors and the landlords agree. Only a minority disagrees. If the rate of visitors reaches a rate where where the occupancy rate of airbnbs is makes them less interesting than long term units, congratulations, you have found market equilibrium.
    - borne0 9y ago
      So people who simply want to live in a city near to where they work and their children go to school have to be subject to market corrections where a single massively financed pseudo-hotel can massively distort a major cost of living assignment? Ridiculous. This is where common-sense regulation is needed.
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        Why do you call it distortion? Its the opposite: the distortion is having empty properties, hotel taxes and zoning. You make a weird argument: you mention the people that work in the city and want to live near it, and this argument has at least 2 flaws. The first one is that in a numbers game, the people that lose out on this exchange is a much smaller number than all the rest. That is, a small proportion of people see their conditions relatively worse because of how a third party does with their property. IF you put it up to a vote of all people involved, they would lose out big time. The second is that you dont take into consideration that airbnb has made it cheaper and easier to travel for people of that socio-economic status as well. Its not only hipsters and software engineers that user airbnb. You have to weigh in the benefit of the consumer.
        borne0 9y ago
        Your argument is absurd, the first sentence gives it away 'empty properties'. Vancouver has no empty properties.
        refurb 9y ago
        Then why do I hear so many stories about Chinese who buy properties in Vancouver and leave it vacant? Seems it's in the news every week.
        ersii 9y ago
        It seems unlikely that there are no empty properties what so ever in a big city like Vancouver, surely there must be some. Do you have any sort of data to back up your claim that there are no empty properties?
- sov 9y ago
  You'd be correct iff a) the dwelling is occupied near-100% of the time AND b) hotels, hostels and similarly-zoned dwellings are routinely at capacity OR c) the dwelling rented is the principal residence of the owner. Do you have data to support this w.r.t. Vancouver?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > a) the dwelling is occupied near-100% That requirement is as sensible as saying that vancouver should outlaw residents from vacationing outside vancouver to ensure there are no vacant properties. Its not the goal to maximize each minute within a housing unit, thats not something you want to focus on. > b) hotels, hostels and similarly-zoned dwellings are routinely at capacity There is no need to look at such thing. In this case you are trying to look at each potential dwelling unit as an abstract unit and each resident as a unit, but they have their own differences and imperfections. Looking at such a metric will push you to think policies like moving long term residents to hotels! > Do you have data to support this w.r.t. Vancouver? I can tell you people travel a lot more because of airbnb, and that there are way more cities that don't care about airbnb at all because it doesnt affect their housing market significantly.
    - around_here 9y ago
      > That requirement is as sensible as saying that vancouver should outlaw residents from vacationing outside vancouver to ensure there are no vacant properties. Its not the goal to maximize each minute within a housing unit, thats not something you want to focus on. You do want people living in their homes for the vast majority of the time. You want them living there, hopefully being part of the community, getting invested in their lives there. The original argument is very sensible. > There is no need to look at such thing. In this case you are trying to look at each potential dwelling unit as an abstract unit and each resident as a unit, but they have their own differences and imperfections. Looking at such a metric will push you to think policies like moving long term residents to hotels! This is only sort of okay. No reasonable person who cares about housing would push to move long term residents to hotels. This is just a terrible premise to put forward. > I can tell you people travel a lot more because of airbnb, and that there are way more cities that don't care about airbnb at all because it doesnt affect their housing market significantly. Do they really? Like whom? AirBnB isn't particularly expensive, and all-in costs are more often than not more expensive than hotels. I don't know _anyone_ who says they travel more because of AirBnb.

vkou 9y ago

When I buy an apartment, and sublet it to a long-term tenant, one unit of housing exists. When I kick that long-term tenant out, and turn it into a AirBnB hotel, I just took one unit of housing from the market for locals, and added one unit of housing to the tourist market. > more tourism which is by all means good for the whole This is contentious. The city may be better off as a whole if it did not have 4,000 homeless people, many of whom were priced out of their apartments, due to tourism, foreign buyers, etc. To many people, more tourism brings little to no benefit, while a reduced housing stock brings much direct harm.

conanbatt 9y ago
> This is contentious. The city may be better off as a whole if it did not have 4,000 homeless people, many of whom were priced out of their apartments, due to tourism, foreign buyers, etc. Homeless people existed in SF long before Airbnb existed. > To many people, more tourism brings little to no benefit, while a reduced housing stock brings much direct harm. Yes, to long term renters. There is no doubt that long term renters would prefer no short term renters existed. They would also prefer for all units to be rent controlled, or that landlords and property owners gave their properties for free.