9 ms·
SF fines two landords $2.25M for illegal Airbnb rentals
- SOLAR_FIELDS 8y agoAmusing bit of hyperbole in the very first line of the article: “San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera is laying down the law — literally. “ Nowhere in the article is it explained how they “literally” are laying down the law.
- jmcgough 8y agoWhat's hyperbolic about that? The article says: "As part of city law, San Francisco requires property owners renting out units for less than 30 days to register with the city’s office of short-term rentals, as well as be a permanent resident of that unit." They were breaking the law, Herrara enforced said law.
- ArchTypical 8y agoYou literally need to look up the definition of what literally means.
- Swizec 8y agoFunny you should say that! The definition of literally changed in August 2013 to also include figuratively due to popular usage. https://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/ https://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary... I was quite surprised when I randomly found out yesterday.
- crooked-v 8y agoThis trend in language literally makes me irrationally angry. I wonder if this is how people felt when some guy invented the word "flammable" in 1813.
- elliekelly 8y agoNext thing you know "irregardless" will be in the dictionary. If that happens I will "literally" have to forsake the English language.
- astura 8y agoGet used to it; language is always evolving. Awful used to mean "awe inspiring" and terrific used mean "causing terror" and now they both mean the opposite and nobody questions it.
- jmcgough 8y agoLiterally (adv): 1) in a literal sense or manner. 2) (informal) used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible I literally just did.
- bcheung 8y agoThis is a fairly recent and controversial change to the word. It was updated officially in the dictionary after people kept misusing the word. So now it means both literally and the complete opposite of literally.
- netsharc 8y ago"literally" was used the way teenagers use them now in old literature too: https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/literally-centuries-of-non-literal-literally/ https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/literally-centuri... But yeah people using this term still grinds my gears.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- grahamburger 8y agoPeople aren't misusing the word. Hyperbole always doesn't mean what it says. The meaning of the statement "my head just exploded" is that my head just exploded. The meaning of the statement "my head just literally exploded" is the same but maybe stronger. The hyperbole applies to the whole phrase and makes the whole thing mean something other than the literal definition of the words.
- wavefunction 8y agoThis seems to be a literal case of "laying down the law" when the phrase usually just refers to some authority figure disciplining a subject.
- ArchTypical 8y agoIdioms are not literal. The implication of my original comment, is now spelled out.
- tedivm 8y agoThe phrase "to lay down" has this meaning- > to state officially what someone must do or how they must do it As in, > The Natural Resources Department has laid down tough standards for water quality. Using that meaning this "literally" seems to work just fine.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 8y agoI suspect the author was thinking of the angle that a hotel/motel is mostly for "laying down". Though it's a pretty weak connection.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoI'm guessing it is intended as somewhat humorous. AirBnB is about "renting out beds for the night." The law here is addressing who can lay down to sleep, where and when and so forth.
- isoskeles 8y agoI don't think the other responses adequately explain what was attempted here. Laying down the law is an idiom. It doesn't have to do with the law. (Someone posted an example specific to laws, which confuses the rhetorical device.) As laying down the law does NOT have to do with law (e.g. I could "lay down the law" by punching someone in the head for touching my stamp collection), they add "literally" because Dennis Herrera is, in fact, the city attorney and is specifically applying the actual law. So rather than doing something unrelated to the law, which is what the idiom "lay down the law" allows for, the idiom's loose definition now has a literal application regarding the word "law", in this case.
- komali2 8y agoHoly crap, they made 700k in profit on Airbnb? How much would they have made as just landlords?
- arcticbull 8y ago14 units times 11 months times the median rent in 2017 ($3000) = $462,000 in revenue. I suppose the article implies approximately $200,000 in expenses but it’s not clear whether those are Airbnb specific or whether those would have been required even if rented to tenants. It’s unlikely that each unit requires $14,000 in maintenance per year. It’s fairer IMO to use $1/sqft per year for condo maintenance when an HOA looks after the exterior, though I’m assuming these were condos? Assuming 750sqft, that’s just $11,000 in costs. Then there’s opportunity cost of capital, etc. The top line number should be good enough for napkin math.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dixie_land 8y agoCommunist California at its best
- dang 8y agoMaybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here, especially not flamebaity ones.
- bcheung 8y agoWhat is the motivation for this law? Why is SF regulating the length of stay or rentors at all? Seems like a gross violation of freedom and property rights. Zoning I can understand but duration? This seems like a bad law.
- cjensen 8y agoRegulating where hotels and other business may be located is a pretty standard thing to regulate. If you turn an apartment block into a factory or hotel without a permit, you are going to have a bad time in pretty much any city.
- devindotcom 8y agoShort term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes? You have different rights as a renter and as a consumer of hotel services. If you claim to be regulated by one (say as a landlord who has several empty units intended for lease) but are operating as the other (essentially an off-books hotel) that is an attempt to manipulate regulators and avoid responsibilities, tax burdens, etc that one or the other has.
- bcheung 8y agoThere are already laws and rights for tenants that are based on how long they have stayed at a place, whether they have received mail there, pay for utilities there, etc. Generally speaking, the more you are a full time tenant for a longer duration the more rights you have.
- bobthepanda 8y agoPeople don't like living next to hotels. This has never really been a problem because until recently the barrier to operating an apartment as a hotel was very high, so no regulation arose to regulate it. All current movements for AirBnB licensing are doing is regulating these as if they are hotels.
- baddox 8y ago
- nostromo 8y ago> “This is a win for San Francisco residents,” Herrera said. “Whether you’re a tenant or a landlord who has been following the law, this is a victory. This outcome frees up more homes for long-term tenants and stops unfair competition in the marketplace. The serious financial penalty is an important deterrent. It sends a clear message to those looking to illegally profit off of San Francisco’s housing crisis: Don’t try it. We will catch you. Most importantly, we preserved more than 45 housing units to be used as homes, not hotel rooms. We are fighting back against San Francisco’s housing crisis in every way possible.” This city attorney seems... extra. You know what else frees up more housing units? Letting people build housing does. You know who is responsible for the housing crisis? The city is.
- crwalker 8y agoWith an attitude like this, SF will be the next Detroit. Exponential economic curves always turn out to be sigmoids, and when the sigmoid flattens and the economy is carrying tremendous dead weight predicated on future increasing prosperity, the city will be out of options.
- tjr225 8y agoWould actually be pretty cool - but SF is far more beautiful than Detroit so, doubtful that it will ever collapse to that extent.
- taurath 8y agoWhy don’t they don’t let people build housing? Voters in the city.
- refurb 8y agoWhile that's true, they don't have to bend over backwards for those voters. SF supervisors have a lot of leniency in clearing out the construction approval backlog.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
- adamnemecek 8y agoHoly shit, how can the city regulate private property like this?
- jankassens 8y agoThis is nothing new. There are many zoning laws restricting what you can do with your land: What can you build? Is commercial and/or residential use allowed? It's very much in line to say if a unit can be used as a hotel-like or not.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jrochkind1 8y agoStrangely, you also can't turn your apartment building into a sweatshop.
- cronix 8y agoAt least now the city has $2.25M to clean the literal shit off their sidewalks. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-francisco-poop-problem-inequality-homelessness https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/18/san-fr...
- matchbok 8y agoWould you want your neighbor operating a dirty, unkept motel next to your house? Didn't think so.
- ppeetteerr 8y agoAirbnb is suing NY right now because the city wants the names and addresses of those who are illegally renting without registering their apartments. I believe it's called "disruption"
- seattle_spring 8y agoSo you also support Facebook giving up names and addresses to law enforcement?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ppeetteerr 8y agoIf it's the names and addresses of advertisers who have been found to violate laws, yes
- iaw 8y agoWhen does Facebook not do that?
- sonnyblarney 8y agoThis is a little different. Law Enforcement want data from Facebook because it's useful to an investigation. Law Enforcement want data from AirBnB because the act of working with AirBnb is the illegal part. So asking a drug dealer for the name of his distributors seems reasonable to me. Or asking the illegal online betting company the names of those who were placing illegal bets. Though the regulations should hopefully be more clear on this.
- l4yao 8y agoAirbnb isn't banned in New York, it can be operated legally. The city is asking for a full list of all operators, including hosts abiding by regulation. If continuing the (poor) Facebook analogy, this is akin to asking for a full list of their users, even the ones abiding by the law.
- zandl 8y agoThere are essentially Airbnb hotels in Seattle too (e.g. JMFM+R8 Seattle, Washington), I wonder if they’re in violation as well.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoYou could find out if interested (Department of Finance and Administrative Services contact info on that page, who regulates short term [ie AirBnB] accommodations). http://www.seattle.gov/business-regulations/short-term-rentals http://www.seattle.gov/business-regulations/short-term-renta...
- dvtrn 8y agoThis actually sounds like it could make for a really interesting endeavor in open records requesting for anyone who geeks off on that sort of thing (looks around...oh wait I guess that's me).
- toomuchtodo 8y agoI look forward to your results!
- jonthepirate 8y agoRather than putting restrictions on what private people can do with their property, I'm starting to think the city should consider bulldozing some of the GG park to put up affordable housing or renting it out for cheap to those who need it where the city of San Francisco would be the landlord.
- thatfrenchguy 8y agoYeah what a great idea to destroy one of the city's great landmark.
- eridius 8y agoZoning regulations are over a century old.
- ihm 8y agoOne never has absolute dominion over their property in the way you’re framing it, nor should they. The city has a right put restrictions on how land (which really ought to be a common resource anyway!) is used.
- hamandcheese 8y ago> As part of city law, San Francisco requires property owners renting out units for less than 30 days to register with the city’s office of short-term rentals, as well as be a permanent resident of that unit. As far as I can tell, AirBnb is blatantly complicit in allowing renters to violate this law. When I moved to SF I stayed in an AirBnb for a few weeks. It didn't occur to me when I booked that it could have been an illegal operation. Once I became aware, I looked up the public records and, lo and behold, there was no short term rental permit.
- lancesells 8y agoNot only are they complicit in it they are profiting off of breaking the law but having zero consequences. They are paying no fine in this case or any other I've heard of because of something in their TOS. "As part of city law, San Francisco requires property owners renting out units for less than 30 days to register with the city’s office of short-term rentals, as well as be a permanent resident of that unit. " - The registration can easily be made a requirement to list on AirBNB and they could limit one unit rental to users. "These are not the type of hosts we want on our platform and are glad the City has the tools it needs to enforce the rules" - Ha.
- abandonliberty 8y agoTheir business model is the arbitrage between legal tourism housing and illegal short term rentals of residential neighborhoods to the detriment of more permanent residents. For both owners of properties and travelers, this is good for you, so you do mental gymnastics to escape it as you can see all over this comment section :)
- torgian 8y agoPersonally, I see no problem with Airbnb and I think the government forcing you to be licensed is bad. Airbnb has a review system for a reason. If it’s a shitty place, you write a review and other people will be less inclined to rent. I’ve been in hotels that were shitty and licensed. I’ve been in airbnb rentals that were cheaper and better taken care of. I’ve also been in great hotels and shitty Airbnb’s. How is suing two property owners a win for city licensed landlords? Are they getting the 2+million? No? Oh the city is getting it for “reasons” and calling it a win. Stupid.
- ppeetteerr 8y agoThere was a case made that Airbnb rentals are subsidized by the local residents through higher rent. So if you travel to Paris, you're paying less for an Airbnb rental there. In your own city, Airbnb rentals are rising the cost of buying and renting. The outcome is that your costs end up the same: higher property at home, lower price of renting abroad. This is, of course, purely theoretical. There are many other factors in play: regulation, your propensity to travel, desirability of your home neighborhood, etc.
- bobthepanda 8y agoThe licensing is not to ensure quality, the licensing is to restrict supply of hotel units. Not to keep hotels in business, but because people simply do not like having short-term visitors as neighbors or floormates. It's not a win for city licensed landlords. It's a win for residents. Residents are ultimately voters. And AirBnB is bad for the vast majority of residents.
- baddox 8y ago> people simply do not like having short-term visitors as neighbors or floormates. That's a commonly provided explanation, but I find it very hard to believe that existing laws and leasing rules can't/don't already easily solve this. If too many instances of noise complaints, property damage, improper trash disposal, etc. occur from your property, you (the owner or renter) get fined or evicted. It's obviously not an excuse to say that you rented out your unit on AirBnb. Surely these laws and rules have always existed, since that problem is not unique to short-term rentals. What am I missing?
- ballenf 8y agoAre they not going after airbnb to get their fees back? Airbnb seems to charge a fee of around 10-13% on bookings, putting their haul around $100k for the 11 months mentioned in the article. Maybe the settlement mentioned also included a financial component. Not downplaying the landlord's unlawful acts, but they couldn't have easily operated at this scale without the help of a popular platform. There's also a 14% occupancy tax only on rentals of less than 30 days, so SF has a financial disincentive against converting all these properties to long term rentals. (Edit: if airbnb is lowering the average short term rental price, then the picture is less clear. There are tourists who will go outside SF if there aren't any 'whole house' options there...)
- intrasight 8y agoThe fines have to be large enough to discourage breaking the law. Is it a good law? I generally trust the residents to pass laws that make sense for those that live there. What I want to understand is what makes SF different from other cities in terms of zoning laws?
- awad 8y agoThe city government would like to blame illegal Airbnb rentals for contributing to the housing crisis but at the same time still enforces strict height limits on buildings because NIMBYism. It won't be today, or tomorrow, but eventually SF and the greater Bay Area will no longer be sustainable as the major economic hub it is without some serious change. You can't complain about increasing income inequality and cost of living problems without addressing the core component that makes up the cost of living...
- imaginenore 8y agoI wonder if it's possible to build down instead of up, or is it too expensive to excavate.