3 ms·
Residing isn't the same thing as having different people in and out on a daily basis, with no connection to or accountability to the community and one's neighbo
by GavinMcG 6y ago
Residing isn't the same thing as having different people in and out on a daily basis, with no connection to or accountability to the community and one's neighbors.
There's also just a raw market concern: using housing stock + AirBnB as an investment/storage for wealth has serious effects on the ability of people to live in these communities. The market is amoral; it's up to us to elect leaders who constrain it with rules that reflect our values.
- sneak 6y agoWhat right do you have to use the threat of violence to constrain others with rules using a residential unit peacefully and in accordance with the safety/quiet enjoyment laws that govern normal, safe use of such space? To believe that you have some right to control the events in the home of another person (that doesn't affect you) is the part that, to me, is entirely amoral. There is no reasonable basis for it, in my view. Substitute "having boarders" with "having kinky/non-heteronormative sex" or any other thing the neighbors would object to that doesn't affect them and isn't their business to see where I'm coming from.
- vidarh 6y agoProperty rights only exist in the first place in the form of threat of violence to constraint others. It's a societal compact that comes with responsibilities, not just rights. The fact that it exists only as the threat of violence is incidentally why the person who invented libertarianism - Joseph Dejacque - opposed property rights, and cited Proudhon's famous "property is theft" in the letter that first set out libertarianism as a political ideology. It then gets comical when people try to use the "threat of violence" right libertarian mantra in defence of property. If this use did not impact neighbours, I'd be entirely with you, but it does affect neighbours. You're arguing you should have a right to harm others, while they should have no recourse.
- sneak 6y agoI've yet to see the city-level arguments against AirBnB that aren't simple money grabs by the local tax authorities, or protectionist nonsense for the large hotel businesses (which reduces back to same). Both of the cities in which I live are huge tourist destinations and maybe the harm you are describing is totally invisible or something, but I haven't seen or experienced it, or known anyone else who has, despite living in the ground-zero neighborhoods for such things. I certainly don't believe anyone has a right to infringe upon the quiet enjoyment of anyone else at home.
- vidarh 6y agoIf it was quiet enjoyment of anyone else at home, nobody would be complaining. It's exactly because that isn't what it is there are complaints. Good for you that you've not been affected. Lots of other people have, and you're arguing for depriving them of quiet enjoyment of their homes because you want people to be free to ignore the effects of their own actions on others. Incidentally I'd be all for supporting proposals to zone to allow unrestricted tourist rentals in certain places if there's demand for it. But I sure as hell would never live in such a zone.
- sneak 6y agoHow have those other people been affected? I think the burden of proof lies on the people who are claiming that this isn't hotel and tax protectionism.
- vidarh 6y agoIf you do not understand how noise, traffic and higher prices affect people, then this discussion is pointless, as you seem intent on being intentionally obtuse about the concerns of other people.