4 ms·

I’m rather torn about the Airbnb model. One, hotels charge way too much money. When a hotel room costs $300 to $500 per night, then this will quickly burn your

I’m rather torn about the Airbnb model. One, hotels charge way too much money. When a hotel room costs $300 to $500 per night, then this will quickly burn your travel budget. Two, Airbnb hosts are often, rather dishonest with their listings. But, Airbnb is the only way to rent someone’s house in a distant location, where your family and extended family can stay together to get away. It’s impossible to do this with a hotel, and very expensive too. Initially, some people got enterprising, and rented out their homes to help pay their mortgages. And they charged a modest fee for it. For a while, this seemed ok, as you were helping out someone to pay off their expensive mortgage. Like, Yeah! Stick it to the rich bankers, and all the jackasses that contribute to expensive housing. But then, soon others, turned it into a hotel operation, where investors would team up to buy houses and apartments, only to rent it out on Airbnb. And when this happened, everyone else started doing it, and so the initial Airbnb business model was no longer socially or morally acceptable. You and I, as an individual, cannot compete against a team of 5 investors that buys the property outright. Our individual goal, is to put down roots, build a family, and contribute to the community so our children can have a stable place to live. Their goal, is to make a profit, and later flip the house for an even larger profit. For better or worse, maybe this coronavirus will destroy the Airbnb business model. Its initial thesis, is no longer socially acceptable.

rahilb 7y ago
Before AirBnB, you just had BnBs. In England at least they were often farmhouses, and the owner literally makes you breakfast if you were staying in their main house (this was a large part of it). I’m not sure what if any regulation applies if you are a BnB like that. In fact, it’s such a part of British culture, there is a game show where 5 BnB owners stay at each other’s places and see who is ranked best. The show airs every week. AirBNB are parasites.
- pas 7y ago
  It's not AirBnB. It's again society kicking down. Many more people now travel and use AirBnB, because it made travel cheaper. The downside is that housing got even more complicated. However, building new supply is very much demand driven. And AirBnB pushed up demand, which lead to more units built. (Probably some hotels were not built, etc.) This "parasite" thinking is just impotent rage. The real problem is the lack of housing supply. City dwellers are rather resistant to change. Development is noisy, draws more traffic, casts a shadow, etc. Yet most of them are also renters. It's the classic participation asymmetry. The vocal minority trumps the silent majority.
  - capableweb 7y ago
    > The real problem is the lack of housing supply I guess one group of people are suggesting that we adjust the demand to the local people who live and work in the city rather than allowing the demand of tourists to take the supply. In some areas it's also simply not possible to change the supply as all the land who could be built on, is already built. I for one would love to see a re-prioritization for the local people in favor of tourists, and we're slowly seeing that shift happening now.
    - pas 7y ago
      I have absolutely no problem with communities, cities deciding how they allow basic usage of property that affects others. (The typical complaint is that short-term rentals cause a lot of disturbance, new people every week, parties every week, and so on.) But directly prohibiting short-term rentals just because they take up units is the same short sighted "solution" as prohibiting high-density mixed-use development. Cities that are growing/booming/trending are attracting people all over the world nowadays. For work, for leisure, for simply living there. I'm not saying just start building high-rises like there's no tomorrow. (Actually I think simple quotas with lottery systems would work best.) Control the influx, not just one symptom. > land who could be built on, is already built. Could you describe such an actual example? I can't really think of any place on Earth where we can't easily increase population density by building up.

rahilb 7y ago

Before AirBnB, you just had BnBs. In England at least they were often farmhouses, and the owner literally makes you breakfast if you were staying in their main house (this was a large part of it). I’m not sure what if any regulation applies if you are a BnB like that. In fact, it’s such a part of British culture, there is a game show where 5 BnB owners stay at each other’s places and see who is ranked best. The show airs every week. AirBNB are parasites.

pas 7y ago
It's not AirBnB. It's again society kicking down. Many more people now travel and use AirBnB, because it made travel cheaper. The downside is that housing got even more complicated. However, building new supply is very much demand driven. And AirBnB pushed up demand, which lead to more units built. (Probably some hotels were not built, etc.) This "parasite" thinking is just impotent rage. The real problem is the lack of housing supply. City dwellers are rather resistant to change. Development is noisy, draws more traffic, casts a shadow, etc. Yet most of them are also renters. It's the classic participation asymmetry. The vocal minority trumps the silent majority.
- capableweb 7y ago
  > The real problem is the lack of housing supply I guess one group of people are suggesting that we adjust the demand to the local people who live and work in the city rather than allowing the demand of tourists to take the supply. In some areas it's also simply not possible to change the supply as all the land who could be built on, is already built. I for one would love to see a re-prioritization for the local people in favor of tourists, and we're slowly seeing that shift happening now.
  - pas 7y ago
    I have absolutely no problem with communities, cities deciding how they allow basic usage of property that affects others. (The typical complaint is that short-term rentals cause a lot of disturbance, new people every week, parties every week, and so on.) But directly prohibiting short-term rentals just because they take up units is the same short sighted "solution" as prohibiting high-density mixed-use development. Cities that are growing/booming/trending are attracting people all over the world nowadays. For work, for leisure, for simply living there. I'm not saying just start building high-rises like there's no tomorrow. (Actually I think simple quotas with lottery systems would work best.) Control the influx, not just one symptom. > land who could be built on, is already built. Could you describe such an actual example? I can't really think of any place on Earth where we can't easily increase population density by building up.