4 ms·

> What do you see as the differences between airbnb and this? Not OP, but I share a similar view. If you're renting out a room of an ADU, you're still occupyin

> What do you see as the differences between airbnb and this? Not OP, but I share a similar view. If you're renting out a room of an ADU, you're still occupying the property and using it as housing yourself. The whole difference is that the sole use of the property is not taking it off the long term rental/buying market. With spare rooms/ADUs, that's not the purpose of the property, whereas with renting out a whole house it is.

bostonsre 5y ago
Don't some listings on airbnb do the exact same thing? Would those be ok from airbnb if they stopped the other types? Is the only difference having a landlord on site?
- dorchadas 5y ago
  I absolutely would be more accepting of it if they only allowed ones where the landlord was on-site, yes.
  - enjo 5y ago
    In Denver the law is that a person can only AirBnb a property that is their primary residence. If you have an ADU or want to rent a room you can do that full time. We rent our place when we travel.. It seems like a good compromise to me.
    - dorchadas 5y ago
      I would agree with that, and then fine AirBnB itself whenever anyone breaks the rules. That'll get them to take it seriously as well. I definitely see nothing wrong with you renting out your house while gone on vacation. The issue I have is when people buy a house and take it off the market to rent it out to short term leasers.
cletus 5y ago
I agree with all this. I'll further add that the landlord being there means they can't simply foist loud, unruly or unsafe temporary residents on an area where he or she does not have any skin in the game. That is, they have to suffer the consequences too. This invariably will lead to less negative externalities. But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost before being simply an investment vehicle for a foreign pension fund (for example). That would mean that in NYC, for example, you get charged much higher property tax if you yourself are not a NYC resident (or possibly NYS resident).
- dorchadas 5y ago
  > But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost It's so weird to me to think that this isn't considered the default view. I 100% agree with it, and think it should be the obvious view, but it's clear there's many who do disagree.
  - jolux 5y ago
    It is the default view. The problem is that our tax structures and zoning regulations incentivize this behavior. We need a land value tax to really put an end to it, and get rid of the laws that stop housing supply from meeting demand in cities across the US.
    - bostonsre 5y ago
      Yea, I think future residents should be allowed to join a city without being penalized. The artificially constrained housing supply and NIMBY-ism seems very unamerican to me.
      - jolux 5y ago
        In some ways it’s very American, it’s just the side of America that we’re not proud of. Property owners benefit from the status quo of housing scarcity, and they are the most powerful bloc in local politics.

bostonsre 5y ago

Don't some listings on airbnb do the exact same thing? Would those be ok from airbnb if they stopped the other types? Is the only difference having a landlord on site?

dorchadas 5y ago
I absolutely would be more accepting of it if they only allowed ones where the landlord was on-site, yes.
- enjo 5y ago
  In Denver the law is that a person can only AirBnb a property that is their primary residence. If you have an ADU or want to rent a room you can do that full time. We rent our place when we travel.. It seems like a good compromise to me.
  - dorchadas 5y ago
    I would agree with that, and then fine AirBnB itself whenever anyone breaks the rules. That'll get them to take it seriously as well. I definitely see nothing wrong with you renting out your house while gone on vacation. The issue I have is when people buy a house and take it off the market to rent it out to short term leasers.

cletus 5y ago

I agree with all this. I'll further add that the landlord being there means they can't simply foist loud, unruly or unsafe temporary residents on an area where he or she does not have any skin in the game. That is, they have to suffer the consequences too. This invariably will lead to less negative externalities. But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost before being simply an investment vehicle for a foreign pension fund (for example). That would mean that in NYC, for example, you get charged much higher property tax if you yourself are not a NYC resident (or possibly NYS resident).

dorchadas 5y ago
> But this fits into a broader belief that I have, which is that cities should generally be for the residents of them first and foremost It's so weird to me to think that this isn't considered the default view. I 100% agree with it, and think it should be the obvious view, but it's clear there's many who do disagree.
- jolux 5y ago
  It is the default view. The problem is that our tax structures and zoning regulations incentivize this behavior. We need a land value tax to really put an end to it, and get rid of the laws that stop housing supply from meeting demand in cities across the US.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    Yea, I think future residents should be allowed to join a city without being penalized. The artificially constrained housing supply and NIMBY-ism seems very unamerican to me.
    - jolux 5y ago
      In some ways it’s very American, it’s just the side of America that we’re not proud of. Property owners benefit from the status quo of housing scarcity, and they are the most powerful bloc in local politics.