9 ms·

What 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.

What 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 ago
Regulating 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 ago
Short 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    People 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
  > Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes? It's clear that a lot of people take this for granted, but I don't. I don't see why the rights of one group ought to be different or more important than the rights of another group.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    As a pedestrian, you have the right to transport yourself using the sidewalk; as an automobile driver, you don't.
georgeburdell 8y ago
This is what SF does: create a ton of laws or regulations so that it’s onerous to not break one, then selectively enforce them when it’s palatable to. Try street parking in SF; it’s like an SAT problem trying to figure out if you’re doing it legally. Arbitrary justice is not good.
- Daishiman 8y ago
  What are you talking about? The article is clear in that this was a flagrant violation, reiterated multiple times. I have no sympathy for these landlords.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  The distinction between hotels and residences is pretty standard across the world and is hardly arbitrary.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  I too have accidentally run an illegal hotel by renting out dozens of units hundreds of times, who hasn’t? Wait...
pertymcpert 8y ago
Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.
- bcheung 8y ago
  Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?
  - pertymcpert 8y ago
    Because people's day to day ability to live in shelter is more important than tourists.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kofejnik 8y ago
      is more important to whom? do you mean that tourists are non-people?
      - pertymcpert 8y ago
        Tourism for the tourist is a luxury, shelter for the resident is a necessity. If you’ve been homeless you would probably agree not having a home is quite a bit worse than having to pay more for a hotel when on holiday.
  - ihm 8y ago
    “Letting supply and demand decide” means deciding to give the housing to whoever will pay the most: which group do you think will pay more, the entire world of tourists who want to visit SF on vacation or people who live here? Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?
nanis 8y ago
Hotel owners do not want competition. For a politician, it is easier to extract surplus from a limited number of hotel owners than from a large number of people renting their individual units. So, under the appropriate excuse, a law preventing competition is passed. The foundations of all this were established in the early 20th century in cases such as Nebbia v New York[1], Munn v Illinois[2] etc. For the record, I think these decisions, and the various laws passed by cities in an effort to protect hotel owners and taxi medallion owners and cable franchise owners etc are both horrible law and horrible economics. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502 [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/94/113/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/94/113/
- exogeny 8y ago
  This is a pretty short-sighted view, in my opinion. Regulation also means working fire alarms, access for disabled persons, and a whole lot of other things that are far from guaranteed with unscrupulous building owners in a booming housing market. The right solution is in the middle somewhere, but it's insufficient to simply call this a case of regulatory oversight.
  - dwild 8y ago
    I think you answered to the wrong comment. He never said all regulations were wrong, he said the monopolistic regulation around hotel and taxi are just made to protect hotel and taxi owners. He isn't talking about any other regulation from what I understands.
- matchbok 8y ago
  This his incredible inaccurate. Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented. The fact that these interests align with the hotel industry is irrelevant. Most of the profit AirBnb generates is from huge, commercial interests renting out 10+ rooms and entire houses. That strains supply and disrupts neighborhoods.
  - 8y ago

cjensen 8y ago

Regulating 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 ago

Short 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 ago
There 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 ago
  People 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
> Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes? It's clear that a lot of people take this for granted, but I don't. I don't see why the rights of one group ought to be different or more important than the rights of another group.
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  As a pedestrian, you have the right to transport yourself using the sidewalk; as an automobile driver, you don't.

georgeburdell 8y ago

This is what SF does: create a ton of laws or regulations so that it’s onerous to not break one, then selectively enforce them when it’s palatable to. Try street parking in SF; it’s like an SAT problem trying to figure out if you’re doing it legally. Arbitrary justice is not good.

Daishiman 8y ago
What are you talking about? The article is clear in that this was a flagrant violation, reiterated multiple times. I have no sympathy for these landlords.
bobthepanda 8y ago
The distinction between hotels and residences is pretty standard across the world and is hardly arbitrary.
village-idiot 8y ago
I too have accidentally run an illegal hotel by renting out dozens of units hundreds of times, who hasn’t? Wait...

pertymcpert 8y ago

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis? The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

bcheung 8y ago
Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  Because people's day to day ability to live in shelter is more important than tourists.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kofejnik 8y ago
    is more important to whom? do you mean that tourists are non-people?
    - pertymcpert 8y ago
      Tourism for the tourist is a luxury, shelter for the resident is a necessity. If you’ve been homeless you would probably agree not having a home is quite a bit worse than having to pay more for a hotel when on holiday.
- ihm 8y ago
  “Letting supply and demand decide” means deciding to give the housing to whoever will pay the most: which group do you think will pay more, the entire world of tourists who want to visit SF on vacation or people who live here? Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?

nanis 8y ago

Hotel owners do not want competition. For a politician, it is easier to extract surplus from a limited number of hotel owners than from a large number of people renting their individual units. So, under the appropriate excuse, a law preventing competition is passed. The foundations of all this were established in the early 20th century in cases such as Nebbia v New York[1], Munn v Illinois[2] etc. For the record, I think these decisions, and the various laws passed by cities in an effort to protect hotel owners and taxi medallion owners and cable franchise owners etc are both horrible law and horrible economics. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502 [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/94/113/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/94/113/

exogeny 8y ago
This is a pretty short-sighted view, in my opinion. Regulation also means working fire alarms, access for disabled persons, and a whole lot of other things that are far from guaranteed with unscrupulous building owners in a booming housing market. The right solution is in the middle somewhere, but it's insufficient to simply call this a case of regulatory oversight.
- dwild 8y ago
  I think you answered to the wrong comment. He never said all regulations were wrong, he said the monopolistic regulation around hotel and taxi are just made to protect hotel and taxi owners. He isn't talking about any other regulation from what I understands.
matchbok 8y ago
This his incredible inaccurate. Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented. The fact that these interests align with the hotel industry is irrelevant. Most of the profit AirBnb generates is from huge, commercial interests renting out 10+ rooms and entire houses. That strains supply and disrupts neighborhoods.
- 8y ago