4 ms·

The problem is that investors buy up cheap apartments and put them on AirBnB to make insane profits. This drives up prices for locals. The other tenants are m

The problem is that investors buy up cheap apartments and put them on AirBnB to make insane profits. This drives up prices for locals. The other tenants are mad because landlords prefer renting apartments to tourists for 5k a month instead of renting to locals for 1k a month.

jimmaswell 7y ago
Some price controls and restrictions on renting out whole domiciles would be nice but the aspect of renting out a portion of an already-occupied space like I used it for is great.
- parthdesai 7y ago
  Yes, airbnb used as a bed and breakfast is great. I'm not saying otherwise. But what has ended up happening is people buying multiple properties to list them only on airbnb. This has created shortage for people actually living and working in the city and driving the rent prices up in desirable neighbourhoods since tourists want to experience the city through the lens of a local person. And Airbnb actively lobbies and tries to skirt the rules where city puts a limit on how many units you can list and for how many days a year. So yeah, long story short, fuck airbnb.
- ianai 7y ago
  Price controls are a dead political option. Laws that either mandate change or enforce original intent tend to work better. Ie forcing home buyers to sign a document stating they are not flipping the property.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  If that's all AirBnB was used for, nobody would complain. But at least 90% of listings on Airbnb are for whole apartments that nobody lives in. If people just rented out their guest room, or rented their apartment out while they're on vacation, I don't think anybody would complain.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Hotels would
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> The other tenants are mad because landlords prefer renting apartments to tourists for 5k a month instead of renting to locals for 1k a month. If this is happening it's because your city has a massive shortage of short-term rental properties. If you can make $5k a month then people should be building those properties left and right since it's so profitable -- but what most likely happened is that your city passed rules effectively prohibiting that construction, so now there's an arbitrage opportunity by converting long-term rentals to short-term rentals. You should direct your anger at your local government for doing nothing to address the high short-term rental demand, because if they did then that wouldn't happen. And the same rules tend to restrict the availability of long-term rentals as well, which means that they were causing your rent to be higher than necessary even before people started converting neighboring units.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
zozbot234 7y ago
> This drives prices up for locals. Yes, so what? Why should a tourist be forced to pay more than a "local" (who might nonetheless move out of town at a moment's notice) for what boils down to the exact same service?
- wutbrodo 7y ago
  Because there are massive positive externalities to people stably investing their communities (often called "social capital"). Your attitude of putting your head in the sand about things you can't measure precisely is the consistent folly of the High Modernist, "systems are simple so we can tear them down and remake them" line of thought that destroyed the American city. I actually think cities tend to overregulate Airbnb (and housing construction), but if your model of housing policy can't tell the difference between a tourist and a resident, it's woefully incomplete.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    The thing is that a NIMBY attitude does absolutely nothing to create more social capital. Places where social capital is highest are often precisely those with the strongest traditions of welcoming hospitality towards short-term-visiting ("touristy") outsiders.
    - wutbrodo 7y ago
      I agree, and I'm probably closer to you in my opinion of nimbys than you think. But I don't think there's a problem with being aware, at a policy level, of the distinction between residents and tourists.

jimmaswell 7y ago

Some price controls and restrictions on renting out whole domiciles would be nice but the aspect of renting out a portion of an already-occupied space like I used it for is great.

parthdesai 7y ago
Yes, airbnb used as a bed and breakfast is great. I'm not saying otherwise. But what has ended up happening is people buying multiple properties to list them only on airbnb. This has created shortage for people actually living and working in the city and driving the rent prices up in desirable neighbourhoods since tourists want to experience the city through the lens of a local person. And Airbnb actively lobbies and tries to skirt the rules where city puts a limit on how many units you can list and for how many days a year. So yeah, long story short, fuck airbnb.
ianai 7y ago
Price controls are a dead political option. Laws that either mandate change or enforce original intent tend to work better. Ie forcing home buyers to sign a document stating they are not flipping the property.
jakobegger 7y ago
If that's all AirBnB was used for, nobody would complain. But at least 90% of listings on Airbnb are for whole apartments that nobody lives in. If people just rented out their guest room, or rented their apartment out while they're on vacation, I don't think anybody would complain.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Hotels would

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> The other tenants are mad because landlords prefer renting apartments to tourists for 5k a month instead of renting to locals for 1k a month. If this is happening it's because your city has a massive shortage of short-term rental properties. If you can make $5k a month then people should be building those properties left and right since it's so profitable -- but what most likely happened is that your city passed rules effectively prohibiting that construction, so now there's an arbitrage opportunity by converting long-term rentals to short-term rentals. You should direct your anger at your local government for doing nothing to address the high short-term rental demand, because if they did then that wouldn't happen. And the same rules tend to restrict the availability of long-term rentals as well, which means that they were causing your rent to be higher than necessary even before people started converting neighboring units.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

zozbot234 7y ago

> This drives prices up for locals. Yes, so what? Why should a tourist be forced to pay more than a "local" (who might nonetheless move out of town at a moment's notice) for what boils down to the exact same service?

wutbrodo 7y ago
Because there are massive positive externalities to people stably investing their communities (often called "social capital"). Your attitude of putting your head in the sand about things you can't measure precisely is the consistent folly of the High Modernist, "systems are simple so we can tear them down and remake them" line of thought that destroyed the American city. I actually think cities tend to overregulate Airbnb (and housing construction), but if your model of housing policy can't tell the difference between a tourist and a resident, it's woefully incomplete.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The thing is that a NIMBY attitude does absolutely nothing to create more social capital. Places where social capital is highest are often precisely those with the strongest traditions of welcoming hospitality towards short-term-visiting ("touristy") outsiders.
  - wutbrodo 7y ago
    I agree, and I'm probably closer to you in my opinion of nimbys than you think. But I don't think there's a problem with being aware, at a policy level, of the distinction between residents and tourists.