3 ms·
As you said if there is a "that guy" in a neighborhood you'd feel unsafe and Airbnb is displacing those people. It's a trade-off. Its not like this about adding
by handmodel 5y ago
As you said if there is a "that guy" in a neighborhood you'd feel unsafe and Airbnb is displacing those people. It's a trade-off. Its not like this about adding units to a neighborhood but specifically that there is less community if that's the case there are lots of Airbnbs (they said in the article that noise complains and crimes leading to rowdy behavior did not change).
If someone was on the fence about whether this community effect is real - after a single study - wouldn't knowing if 5% of units are Airbnb's are rentals versus 40% be enough to change your conclusions? My prior is that a community cannot be eroded by 10% of unknown people since that is standard for any tight-knit neighborhood anyway.
- gzer0 5y agoKnowing whether it was 5% or 40% makes no difference- either one could be enough to cause the negative consequences listed in the article. More studies would be needed to draw further conclusions. You are beginning to create arguments that do not exist to justify your position. It is unfortunate that you resort to circular reasoning and logic to support a non-existant claim.
- handmodel 5y agoI don't see how this number does not make sense. If you think that 5% bad neighbors is enough to ruin a whole neighborhood then it would be tough to blame it on AirBNB since most neighborhoods allow subletters in some form (ADUs in SFH areas, apartment subletters in apartment areas). Meanwhile, the only way to get to 40% is really by AirBNBs. I don't see how one can say that a magnitude difference, and knowledge of what the baseline is without AirBNB, would not change your opinion.