7 ms·

I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Those are 'problems' that most cities in the world wou

by Fede_V 8y ago

I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Those are 'problems' that most cities in the world would kill for: if we consider them problems it's because we are not nearly creative enough to take advantage of them. As a simple example: if we have too many tourists, give a progressive daily tax that's charged to every visitor that automatically includes museum visits/etc. Use that revenue to build more housing for local residents (and if some dipshit points out that more housing ruins a neighboorhood's character, ask yourself if Paris or suburbia has more character) or to subsidize local transport infrastructure.

Sangermaine 8y ago
>I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Step outside of theoretical economic thought experiments and try living in a formerly quiet neighborhood or building suddenly experiencing an influx of loud drunk littering assholes. Residential areas are desired as residential areas for a reason. I live in NYC and sure as hell don't want to live around Times Square. There are actual people living in these cities who want a decent quality of life where they live. Echoing many others in the this thread, in a previous apartment in a residential area of Manhattan someone down the hall starting renting their unit to Airbnb visitors. It was a nightmare, but thankfully the landlord caught wind in a few weeks and kicked the person out.
- xapata 8y ago
  The correct way to handle those problems is to enforce noise and litter regulations. If your owner-neighbor is rowdy, it's no different than if their guests are rowdy.
  - Xylakant 8y ago
    Neighbor stays and is subject to enforcement, AirBnB guest leaves and isn’t.
    - xapata 8y ago
      The owner or tenant is subject to enforcement and pays the consequences of their guests actions.
      - Xylakant 8y ago
        Sure. Which would be what exactly? He can’t have a license revoked since he’s not having one.
        xapata 8y ago
        I meant "pay" in the literal sense of paying a fine.
        Xylakant 8y ago
        I don’t know about anything but Germany, but here you’d have to sue the owner yourself. Enjoy. Well now, since AirBnB is illegal in Berlin he might actually get fined.
        xapata 8y ago
        > sue the owner yourself That's awful. In the US we have misdemeanor noise violations that carry a fine (or jail time if you refuse to pay). Neighbors will call the police if your party is too rowdy. They'll show up looking for underage drinkers. Usually if you are nice to the cops and promise to be quiet (and everyone they see is 21+) they'll just warn you and not write a ticket.
        Xylakant 8y ago
        are certain that the fine could be levied against the owner instead of the actual perpetrator?
        Tushon 8y ago
  - Angostura 8y ago
    And the fact that you don't see your neighbours and that the schools suddenly have a reduction in intake?
pjc50 8y ago
> a progressive daily tax that's charged to every visitor Lots of places already have this as a "hotel tax" .. which AirBnb doesn't pay.
- xapata 8y ago
  Not true. I've stayed in several places where an extra county-specific tax is imposed via AirBnB. There may be some places which haven't yet arranged for AirBnB to pay the tax, but it isn't because AirBnB refuses. In fact, it may be because hotels in that area are still holding out for the possibility of banning AirBnB. When AirBnB starts paying hotel taxes, it becomes nearly impossible to remove.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
    Venice, mentioned elsewhere in this thread as a problem city because of AirBnB, levies this tax against people who visit and stay in AirBnB
    - wool_gather 8y ago
      This is interesting. How is it enforced and collected?
      - Cub3 8y ago
        Anecdotally when I was staying in Venice two years ago I didn't pay any kind of tax for the Airbnb unless it was worked into the price.
      - xapata 8y ago
        Separate line item in the nightly rate. It's easy to overlook. It references the locale collecting the tax.
- enra 8y ago
  It’s collected in most states and in some countries that have elected the tax to cover short term rentals: (including France, Germany, Switzerland, India, Mexico, Brazil, Italy) https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-available https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occ... Outside of that list, the host may have to collect it themselves if the location is not supported yet: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/654/what-is-occupancy-tax--do-i-need-to-collect-or-pay-it https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/654/what-is-occupancy-ta.... (Disclosure: I work at Airbnb)
Fede_V 8y ago
Let me flesh out a few very simple proposals: a complaint that a lot of city residents have is that tourists that arrive in a city don't spend a lot of money there because they pack their own lunches/avoid museums, etc. How about charging a very high tax (in the form of a voucher) for hotel/AirBnB stays, but make that voucher spendable in local restaurants/museums? This would have the bonus that you'd also kill the local black market economy, as tourists would insist on being able to pay for goods using their voucher.
- gojomo 8y ago
  This is the 1st time I've heard the complaint that tourists don't spend money. Where is that a oft-expressed concern? I suspect any voucher system like you propose would just create a secondary gray market in slightly-discounted vouchers.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    1. Anywhere where cruise ships are regular visitors. There are often free meals on the ship, and obviously no overnight stays in hotels. 2. Anywhere popular with young tourists (Amsterdam, Berlin etc). This might be limited to Europe, with a €20 flight (or bus) to the city, a bed in a cheap hostel, a visit to all the free things etc. This isn't new, but Couchsurfing and cheap transport have probably increased it.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      Interesting! But, those types of tourists don't seem to overlap with AirBnB-type tourists, against whom the upthread complaints & proposals are directed. So while I'm interested to hear of those cases, this "they don't spend" concern still seems out-of-place if directed against AirBnBers.
      - newfoundglory 8y ago
        Airbnb is definitely among the "cheap hostel" options available today. Get a 2 bedroom apartment, put a couple bunk beds in each room, voila.
indigochill 8y ago
In Reykjavik "too many tourists" is very much a problem. Or more specifically, the ratio of tourists to available housing. Sure, there are solutions. There's a huge housing bubble right now (which will collapse whenever tourism dries up), for instance. Maybe if it keeps on this way some legislation will be passed to get it under control. But both of those solutions are completely out of the hands of the people who actually can't afford to live in the city where they work.
- danudey 8y ago
  It's a huge problem in Vancouver, as well. There's a huge housing crisis here, and there's a lot of factors involved, but real estate speculation and short-term rentals are substantial contributors. There was a woman at a city council meeting a few years ago who lived in a building with around 10 units, and she said six of them were on AirBnB. When ever she checked, their (small) pool always had people in it she'd never seen before, and never would again. People buy places to live in and make a life in, and then half the building is party people. For what it's worth, this has always made us extremely wary of AirBnB, and we do a lot of research for cities we visit before we rent an AirBnB somewhere. In Montreal they're regulated, so we had no problem there. In Reykjavik, we rented from a woman who was staying at her mother's place to take care of her pets while she (her mother) was out of the country, so our stay wasn't depriving anyone of housing. Other places we go, where AirBnB isn't as well regulated, we're very particular and tend to go for hotels (e.g. Ottawa, Seattle) because we're very aware of how bad these kinds of systems can be for people.
  - shados 8y ago
    > People buy places to live in and make a life in, and then half the building is party people This has to be repeated. There's no point in living without some level of quality of life. Having everyone trying to raise their family, do their school work, study, or just try to sleep, in what are essentially all becoming hotels, is just not something we should strive for. One could even argue you're going to end up in a world where success in life is tied to wealth, not because of all the reasons commonly associated with it, but just because one group can actually sleep at night and one can't.
decebalus1 8y ago
> 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem Don't convolute these two things in order to influence readers. One does not necessarily imply the other. Venice would not 'kill' for more tourists and most cities in the world would probably 'kill' for a certain amount of tourism but not for couch tourism which indirectly favors real estate speculators buying housing for short-term rent and driving the locals away.
chatmasta 8y ago
People don’t have a problem with “too many tourists” as they do with too many tourists taking up residential space. Tourism is great for the economy, but only as long as it doesn’t create negative externalities on other parts of the economy. It’s not so much the rise in tourism that’s the problem as it is the rise in tourists staying in residentially zoned areas. Hosts are renting apartments and then illegally subleasing them for profit, artificially inflating rental prices without a corresponding increase in income. This is an especially large problem in developing countries, where due to geographical arbitrage, tourists can afford to pay way more for an apartment than a resident can.
kazinator 8y ago
> Those are 'problems' that most cities in the world would kill for Yes, starting with killing affordability for their citizens. > build more housing for local residents But where? 50 km out of town, so they, too, can experience tourism on a daily basis.
nacho2sweet 8y ago
Being a tourist and tourism is a luxury. Having affordable housing is a right.
- bmelton 8y ago
  Not that it's on-topic, but both are rights, and to be more specific, both are negatively asserted rights; which are (at least in America) rights to which nobody else has the obligation to assist you with, but to which nobody in the government may interfere. Whether or not we regard one right as more important than the other (and to be fair, we absolutely should), that doesn't change that nobody else is obligated to assist you in pursuit of your rights.
  - nacho2sweet 8y ago
    One side is going to come with pitchforks, increase racial tension, or vote in an extreme populist while the other is just not gonna come around. Also I am Canadian, it has been stated it is a human right here.
    - bmelton 8y ago
      Negative assertion doesn't imply tacit vs. explicitly stated, it implies whether the government is obligated to provide you with it to ensure your right is served. In America, for example, the right to legal counsel is positively asserted. "If you do not have a lawyer, we will provide one for you." Most other rights, including those explicitly enumerated in the constitution, are negatively asserted. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but it is encumbent on no one to aid me in that right, only the government may not interfere. What does Canada (or your province) do to ensure that all housing prices are kept to affordability?
- samsonradu 8y ago
  Not trying to be cocky, but why is affordable housing a right in a capitalist society? Genuinely curious.
  - 8y ago
majormajor 8y ago
> I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Those are 'problems' that most cities in the world would kill for: if we consider them problems it's because we are not nearly creative enough to take advantage of them. Different people want different things. Too much of a good thing isn't always still a good thing. It's not that hard to understand. Even within the same city! 10% of the city might be tourist facing, 90% not-tourist-facing. So something that's great for that 10% and annoying for the 90% is naturally gonna get some resistance.
shados 8y ago
Growing takes time. Things like a surge in tourism or commercial activities can happen nearly overnight. In the city I live in (no NYC, but still one of the densest in the US and high demand), there's currently some big construction projects, and people are complaining its not big enough. Except its on a former landfill that could not support the larger structures. Let say we fix that...but the size of the project was also scaled according to capacity of the sewer infrastructure. Sure, we can fix that TOO, but then the people building the project have to wait a year, or two, or more, and they want money now. You have to throttle things so that all the moving parts follow each other, to avoid making it hell for everyone.
biztos 8y ago
Assuming the tourists have more money than the locals and anyone can rent their apartment out to tourists instead of long-term to locals, you pretty quickly get to a point where "AirBnB-able" housing stock is taken off the actual housing market. This is a problem that can't be solved by building more housing, because that housing is not going to be built in the historic city centers where the tourists want to stay. (Also, it takes a while to build more housing.) Wouldn't the real market solution be to build more hotels?

by Fede_V 8y ago

Sangermaine 8y ago

>I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Step outside of theoretical economic thought experiments and try living in a formerly quiet neighborhood or building suddenly experiencing an influx of loud drunk littering assholes. Residential areas are desired as residential areas for a reason. I live in NYC and sure as hell don't want to live around Times Square. There are actual people living in these cities who want a decent quality of life where they live. Echoing many others in the this thread, in a previous apartment in a residential area of Manhattan someone down the hall starting renting their unit to Airbnb visitors. It was a nightmare, but thankfully the landlord caught wind in a few weeks and kicked the person out.

xapata 8y ago
The correct way to handle those problems is to enforce noise and litter regulations. If your owner-neighbor is rowdy, it's no different than if their guests are rowdy.
- Xylakant 8y ago
  Neighbor stays and is subject to enforcement, AirBnB guest leaves and isn’t.
  - xapata 8y ago
    The owner or tenant is subject to enforcement and pays the consequences of their guests actions.
    - Xylakant 8y ago
      Sure. Which would be what exactly? He can’t have a license revoked since he’s not having one.
      - xapata 8y ago
        I meant "pay" in the literal sense of paying a fine.
        Xylakant 8y ago
        I don’t know about anything but Germany, but here you’d have to sue the owner yourself. Enjoy. Well now, since AirBnB is illegal in Berlin he might actually get fined.
        xapata 8y ago
        > sue the owner yourself That's awful. In the US we have misdemeanor noise violations that carry a fine (or jail time if you refuse to pay). Neighbors will call the police if your party is too rowdy. They'll show up looking for underage drinkers. Usually if you are nice to the cops and promise to be quiet (and everyone they see is 21+) they'll just warn you and not write a ticket.
        Xylakant 8y ago
        are certain that the fine could be levied against the owner instead of the actual perpetrator?
        Tushon 8y ago
- Angostura 8y ago
  And the fact that you don't see your neighbours and that the schools suddenly have a reduction in intake?

pjc50 8y ago

> a progressive daily tax that's charged to every visitor Lots of places already have this as a "hotel tax" .. which AirBnb doesn't pay.

xapata 8y ago
Not true. I've stayed in several places where an extra county-specific tax is imposed via AirBnB. There may be some places which haven't yet arranged for AirBnB to pay the tax, but it isn't because AirBnB refuses. In fact, it may be because hotels in that area are still holding out for the possibility of banning AirBnB. When AirBnB starts paying hotel taxes, it becomes nearly impossible to remove.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
  Venice, mentioned elsewhere in this thread as a problem city because of AirBnB, levies this tax against people who visit and stay in AirBnB
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    This is interesting. How is it enforced and collected?
    - Cub3 8y ago
      Anecdotally when I was staying in Venice two years ago I didn't pay any kind of tax for the Airbnb unless it was worked into the price.
    - xapata 8y ago
      Separate line item in the nightly rate. It's easy to overlook. It references the locale collecting the tax.
enra 8y ago
It’s collected in most states and in some countries that have elected the tax to cover short term rentals: (including France, Germany, Switzerland, India, Mexico, Brazil, Italy) https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occupancy-tax-collection-and-remittance-by-airbnb-available https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/653/in-what-areas-is-occ... Outside of that list, the host may have to collect it themselves if the location is not supported yet: https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/654/what-is-occupancy-tax--do-i-need-to-collect-or-pay-it https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/654/what-is-occupancy-ta.... (Disclosure: I work at Airbnb)

Fede_V 8y ago

Let me flesh out a few very simple proposals: a complaint that a lot of city residents have is that tourists that arrive in a city don't spend a lot of money there because they pack their own lunches/avoid museums, etc. How about charging a very high tax (in the form of a voucher) for hotel/AirBnB stays, but make that voucher spendable in local restaurants/museums? This would have the bonus that you'd also kill the local black market economy, as tourists would insist on being able to pay for goods using their voucher.

gojomo 8y ago
This is the 1st time I've heard the complaint that tourists don't spend money. Where is that a oft-expressed concern? I suspect any voucher system like you propose would just create a secondary gray market in slightly-discounted vouchers.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  1. Anywhere where cruise ships are regular visitors. There are often free meals on the ship, and obviously no overnight stays in hotels. 2. Anywhere popular with young tourists (Amsterdam, Berlin etc). This might be limited to Europe, with a €20 flight (or bus) to the city, a bed in a cheap hostel, a visit to all the free things etc. This isn't new, but Couchsurfing and cheap transport have probably increased it.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    Interesting! But, those types of tourists don't seem to overlap with AirBnB-type tourists, against whom the upthread complaints & proposals are directed. So while I'm interested to hear of those cases, this "they don't spend" concern still seems out-of-place if directed against AirBnBers.
    - newfoundglory 8y ago
      Airbnb is definitely among the "cheap hostel" options available today. Get a 2 bedroom apartment, put a couple bunk beds in each room, voila.

indigochill 8y ago

In Reykjavik "too many tourists" is very much a problem. Or more specifically, the ratio of tourists to available housing. Sure, there are solutions. There's a huge housing bubble right now (which will collapse whenever tourism dries up), for instance. Maybe if it keeps on this way some legislation will be passed to get it under control. But both of those solutions are completely out of the hands of the people who actually can't afford to live in the city where they work.

danudey 8y ago
It's a huge problem in Vancouver, as well. There's a huge housing crisis here, and there's a lot of factors involved, but real estate speculation and short-term rentals are substantial contributors. There was a woman at a city council meeting a few years ago who lived in a building with around 10 units, and she said six of them were on AirBnB. When ever she checked, their (small) pool always had people in it she'd never seen before, and never would again. People buy places to live in and make a life in, and then half the building is party people. For what it's worth, this has always made us extremely wary of AirBnB, and we do a lot of research for cities we visit before we rent an AirBnB somewhere. In Montreal they're regulated, so we had no problem there. In Reykjavik, we rented from a woman who was staying at her mother's place to take care of her pets while she (her mother) was out of the country, so our stay wasn't depriving anyone of housing. Other places we go, where AirBnB isn't as well regulated, we're very particular and tend to go for hotels (e.g. Ottawa, Seattle) because we're very aware of how bad these kinds of systems can be for people.
- shados 8y ago
  > People buy places to live in and make a life in, and then half the building is party people This has to be repeated. There's no point in living without some level of quality of life. Having everyone trying to raise their family, do their school work, study, or just try to sleep, in what are essentially all becoming hotels, is just not something we should strive for. One could even argue you're going to end up in a world where success in life is tied to wealth, not because of all the reasons commonly associated with it, but just because one group can actually sleep at night and one can't.

decebalus1 8y ago

> 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem Don't convolute these two things in order to influence readers. One does not necessarily imply the other. Venice would not 'kill' for more tourists and most cities in the world would probably 'kill' for a certain amount of tourism but not for couch tourism which indirectly favors real estate speculators buying housing for short-term rent and driving the locals away.

chatmasta 8y ago

People don’t have a problem with “too many tourists” as they do with too many tourists taking up residential space. Tourism is great for the economy, but only as long as it doesn’t create negative externalities on other parts of the economy. It’s not so much the rise in tourism that’s the problem as it is the rise in tourists staying in residentially zoned areas. Hosts are renting apartments and then illegally subleasing them for profit, artificially inflating rental prices without a corresponding increase in income. This is an especially large problem in developing countries, where due to geographical arbitrage, tourists can afford to pay way more for an apartment than a resident can.

kazinator 8y ago

> Those are 'problems' that most cities in the world would kill for Yes, starting with killing affordability for their citizens. > build more housing for local residents But where? 50 km out of town, so they, too, can experience tourism on a daily basis.

nacho2sweet 8y ago

Being a tourist and tourism is a luxury. Having affordable housing is a right.

bmelton 8y ago
Not that it's on-topic, but both are rights, and to be more specific, both are negatively asserted rights; which are (at least in America) rights to which nobody else has the obligation to assist you with, but to which nobody in the government may interfere. Whether or not we regard one right as more important than the other (and to be fair, we absolutely should), that doesn't change that nobody else is obligated to assist you in pursuit of your rights.
- nacho2sweet 8y ago
  One side is going to come with pitchforks, increase racial tension, or vote in an extreme populist while the other is just not gonna come around. Also I am Canadian, it has been stated it is a human right here.
  - bmelton 8y ago
    Negative assertion doesn't imply tacit vs. explicitly stated, it implies whether the government is obligated to provide you with it to ensure your right is served. In America, for example, the right to legal counsel is positively asserted. "If you do not have a lawyer, we will provide one for you." Most other rights, including those explicitly enumerated in the constitution, are negatively asserted. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but it is encumbent on no one to aid me in that right, only the government may not interfere. What does Canada (or your province) do to ensure that all housing prices are kept to affordability?
samsonradu 8y ago
Not trying to be cocky, but why is affordable housing a right in a capitalist society? Genuinely curious.
- 8y ago

majormajor 8y ago

> I can't wrap my mind around people that think that 'too many tourists' or 'too many jobs' are a problem. Those are 'problems' that most cities in the world would kill for: if we consider them problems it's because we are not nearly creative enough to take advantage of them. Different people want different things. Too much of a good thing isn't always still a good thing. It's not that hard to understand. Even within the same city! 10% of the city might be tourist facing, 90% not-tourist-facing. So something that's great for that 10% and annoying for the 90% is naturally gonna get some resistance.

shados 8y ago

Growing takes time. Things like a surge in tourism or commercial activities can happen nearly overnight. In the city I live in (no NYC, but still one of the densest in the US and high demand), there's currently some big construction projects, and people are complaining its not big enough. Except its on a former landfill that could not support the larger structures. Let say we fix that...but the size of the project was also scaled according to capacity of the sewer infrastructure. Sure, we can fix that TOO, but then the people building the project have to wait a year, or two, or more, and they want money now. You have to throttle things so that all the moving parts follow each other, to avoid making it hell for everyone.

biztos 8y ago

Assuming the tourists have more money than the locals and anyone can rent their apartment out to tourists instead of long-term to locals, you pretty quickly get to a point where "AirBnB-able" housing stock is taken off the actual housing market. This is a problem that can't be solved by building more housing, because that housing is not going to be built in the historic city centers where the tourists want to stay. (Also, it takes a while to build more housing.) Wouldn't the real market solution be to build more hotels?