3 ms·

I don't put the blame at the homeowner/absentee landlord, the building, or even Airbnb. All these problems can be traced to city governments that fail/refuse

I don't put the blame at the homeowner/absentee landlord, the building, or even Airbnb. All these problems can be traced to city governments that fail/refuse to respond to the changing dynamic of housing demand, and incentivize homeowners to buy and rent out their properties. If cities managed/governed their property regulations correctly, we wouldn't be facing a situation where development is so constrained, existing property is so valuable (and appreciating), and short term capacity is so lacking. I don't blame people for operating within the incentives that have been put up for them. It's unavoidable. You think each individual Airbnb owner is responsible for this situation? Despite this article being from 2018, the problem of course continues, even has gotten worse. And cities (well, most anyway) do nothing to manage their growth in conjunction with the unstoppable demand that they will have to eventually acknowledge.

fxtentacle 7y ago
I blame Airbnb and I suggest we hold them accountable because they are the ones enabling people to rent out short-term in areas that were planned as residential. Hotels are properly regulated, but AirBnb is profiting off circumventing the existing (good, working) rules on where tourist hotels are to be located. And they are not a neutral marketplace because many people would not rent a room from a random stranger without the guarantees that Airbnb claims to provide. If eBay were to offer warranty on legal gray-area arms deals, you'd hold them accountable, too, I presume. So why treat Airbnb's legal gray-area rentals any better?
CPLX 7y ago
The premise of this argument is ridiculous. By this logic any law, of any kind, that prohibits potentially profitable activity is the source of the lawbreaking. Is the reason people dump trash on vacant lots because we regulate landfills?
- roenxi 7y ago
  In the extreme it is ridiculous, but in small doses it is actually not so unreasonable. The government is not an effective force at stopping people doing things that most of everyone thinks should be done. Government prohibitions work best when there is a small & unpopular minority which is being bought into line. Contrast an alcohol prohibition with laws prohibiting murder. One of those is popularly supported and generally effective. The other is a good example of the law creating a wrongdoing out of nothing.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  What's so ridiculous, if it wasn't against the law it wouldn't be lawbreaking, thus the source of lawbreaking is an existing law. The critical question is whether the law makes sense.
ttul 7y ago
Economist Tom Davidoff proposed a really interesting taxation approach to make property development more elastic to demand [1]. In essence, he proposed that property owners pay property tax calculated on the potential rent they can derive from their property, rather than on the value of the land and buildings, as is more typically the case. “This is really a way to help renters. For example, under the current situation, if you’re a tech sector worker and you have a good salary but you’re really struggling to find a rental in Vancouver, even with your high salary, you’re thinking: “I’m paying really high income tax and really high rent, but my landlord is paying very little in property tax. If we switched that, I’d be better off.” So by raising property taxes and lowering income and sales taxes, you could have a more dynamic economy. People recognize that unaffordability is currently hindering the economy, due to how hard it is to draw workers here to Vancouver who can’t be comfortably housed. But lowering income and sales taxes will also bolster the economy, because people will have more money to spend and more incentive to work and do business. It’s this extra incentive due to lower income and sales tax rates that is behind the theoretical result.” If you extended this concept into the realm of short term rentals, then property taxes on the unit you are able to rent out on AirBnB would be vastly higher than on the unit in a building that prohibits STRs. The market would take care of the rest. [1] https://news.ubc.ca/2018/12/05/ubc-economist-proposes-solution-to-vancouvers-affordability-crisis/ https://news.ubc.ca/2018/12/05/ubc-economist-proposes-soluti...

fxtentacle 7y ago

I blame Airbnb and I suggest we hold them accountable because they are the ones enabling people to rent out short-term in areas that were planned as residential. Hotels are properly regulated, but AirBnb is profiting off circumventing the existing (good, working) rules on where tourist hotels are to be located. And they are not a neutral marketplace because many people would not rent a room from a random stranger without the guarantees that Airbnb claims to provide. If eBay were to offer warranty on legal gray-area arms deals, you'd hold them accountable, too, I presume. So why treat Airbnb's legal gray-area rentals any better?

CPLX 7y ago

The premise of this argument is ridiculous. By this logic any law, of any kind, that prohibits potentially profitable activity is the source of the lawbreaking. Is the reason people dump trash on vacant lots because we regulate landfills?

roenxi 7y ago
In the extreme it is ridiculous, but in small doses it is actually not so unreasonable. The government is not an effective force at stopping people doing things that most of everyone thinks should be done. Government prohibitions work best when there is a small & unpopular minority which is being bought into line. Contrast an alcohol prohibition with laws prohibiting murder. One of those is popularly supported and generally effective. The other is a good example of the law creating a wrongdoing out of nothing.
Kaiyou 7y ago
What's so ridiculous, if it wasn't against the law it wouldn't be lawbreaking, thus the source of lawbreaking is an existing law. The critical question is whether the law makes sense.

ttul 7y ago

Economist Tom Davidoff proposed a really interesting taxation approach to make property development more elastic to demand [1]. In essence, he proposed that property owners pay property tax calculated on the potential rent they can derive from their property, rather than on the value of the land and buildings, as is more typically the case. “This is really a way to help renters. For example, under the current situation, if you’re a tech sector worker and you have a good salary but you’re really struggling to find a rental in Vancouver, even with your high salary, you’re thinking: “I’m paying really high income tax and really high rent, but my landlord is paying very little in property tax. If we switched that, I’d be better off.” So by raising property taxes and lowering income and sales taxes, you could have a more dynamic economy. People recognize that unaffordability is currently hindering the economy, due to how hard it is to draw workers here to Vancouver who can’t be comfortably housed. But lowering income and sales taxes will also bolster the economy, because people will have more money to spend and more incentive to work and do business. It’s this extra incentive due to lower income and sales tax rates that is behind the theoretical result.” If you extended this concept into the realm of short term rentals, then property taxes on the unit you are able to rent out on AirBnB would be vastly higher than on the unit in a building that prohibits STRs. The market would take care of the rest. [1] https://news.ubc.ca/2018/12/05/ubc-economist-proposes-solution-to-vancouvers-affordability-crisis/ https://news.ubc.ca/2018/12/05/ubc-economist-proposes-soluti...