3 ms·

> "This lazy (and typically selfish) twisted version of "free market" thinking quickly erodes when, for example, I propose using my house that's next to yours a

> "This lazy (and typically selfish) twisted version of "free market" thinking quickly erodes when, for example, I propose using my house that's next to yours as a tannery or a toxic waste storage site." i'm down for a good "free market" critique, but this veers hyperbolically into nimbyism. everyone agrees that a tannery or toxic waste dump is inappropriate near residences. but having people stay, eat, shower, and sleep in a home is literally what houses are designed for. if you don't own the home, you don't get to choose who stays there (obviously if the renters are breaking the law, that's a problem, and you can report them to the police). i'm also super-sympathetic to the need for (affordable) housing in most cities, but banning airbnb has a relatively negligible effect on that ginormous problem.

cletus 7y ago
> everyone agrees that a tannery or toxic waste dump is inappropriate near residences I think you'll find that's trivially untrue. It's fair to say the vast majority of people agree or even almost everyone. But to find one counterexample? I bet I could do that. My point here is that the argument of "it's my home I can do what I want" is fundamentally flawed and all it takes is a trivial extreme case to debunk it. So when you move on to what's allowed and what isn't, what's good for the community, what isn't and so on, which is essentially what zoning is. > but having people stay, eat, shower, and sleep in a home is literally what houses are designed for So I'm supportive of people hosting other people in their homes, which, incidentally, NYC allows (as one example). Why? Because then the host is invested in that community and can police bad behaviour. When hosts aren't present, they have no such incentive. In years passed, having long and short term boarders was commonplace. Many cities in the post-WWII era however essentially dismantled boarding houses and SROs (which were once where a significant number of people lived) and in some cases outlawed multi-family residences. There are extreme examples of what can happen in an Airbnb [1] [2] [3]. There are countless stories of guests being stranded when hosts canceled at the last minute and scams such as bait-and-switch. [1]: https://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-first/a190520wykmx/police-dismantle-drug-lab-inside-luxury-airbnb-rental-20190520 https://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-first/a190520wykmx/poli... [2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-03/airbnb-bans-party-houses-after-orinda-halloween-shooting/11667250 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-03/airbnb-bans-party-hou... [3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7818881/Airbnb-host-jailed-raping-guest-threatened-post-bad-review-didnt-drink-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7818881/Airbnb-host...
- clairity 7y ago
  the extreme case tivially falls victim to reductio ad absurdum, as shown previously. you've positioned your overall argument as championing the community against an invading force (airbnb), but the claims so far seem to serve a very narrow constituency (and who is the constituency as you see it?). i'm eager to hear substantive assertions that favor the wider community, rather than a narrow constituency, regarding airbnb. i'm open to the notion that airbnb is bad for the community, but the arguments haven't been convincing so far (note that scams and scammers reach far and wide).

cletus 7y ago

> everyone agrees that a tannery or toxic waste dump is inappropriate near residences I think you'll find that's trivially untrue. It's fair to say the vast majority of people agree or even almost everyone. But to find one counterexample? I bet I could do that. My point here is that the argument of "it's my home I can do what I want" is fundamentally flawed and all it takes is a trivial extreme case to debunk it. So when you move on to what's allowed and what isn't, what's good for the community, what isn't and so on, which is essentially what zoning is. > but having people stay, eat, shower, and sleep in a home is literally what houses are designed for So I'm supportive of people hosting other people in their homes, which, incidentally, NYC allows (as one example). Why? Because then the host is invested in that community and can police bad behaviour. When hosts aren't present, they have no such incentive. In years passed, having long and short term boarders was commonplace. Many cities in the post-WWII era however essentially dismantled boarding houses and SROs (which were once where a significant number of people lived) and in some cases outlawed multi-family residences. There are extreme examples of what can happen in an Airbnb [1] [2] [3]. There are countless stories of guests being stranded when hosts canceled at the last minute and scams such as bait-and-switch. [1]: https://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-first/a190520wykmx/police-dismantle-drug-lab-inside-luxury-airbnb-rental-20190520 https://10daily.com.au/shows/10-news-first/a190520wykmx/poli... [2]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-03/airbnb-bans-party-houses-after-orinda-halloween-shooting/11667250 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-03/airbnb-bans-party-hou... [3]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7818881/Airbnb-host-jailed-raping-guest-threatened-post-bad-review-didnt-drink-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7818881/Airbnb-host...

clairity 7y ago
the extreme case tivially falls victim to reductio ad absurdum, as shown previously. you've positioned your overall argument as championing the community against an invading force (airbnb), but the claims so far seem to serve a very narrow constituency (and who is the constituency as you see it?). i'm eager to hear substantive assertions that favor the wider community, rather than a narrow constituency, regarding airbnb. i'm open to the notion that airbnb is bad for the community, but the arguments haven't been convincing so far (note that scams and scammers reach far and wide).