3 ms·

The issue isn't who is staying there, it's the fact that they are just random people that don't have any stake in the surrounding community except for their 2-n

The issue isn't who is staying there, it's the fact that they are just random people that don't have any stake in the surrounding community except for their 2-night stay there. Comparing this to redlining is absurd.

bko 4y ago
They're not "random people". They're human beings. What's optimal time of stay? Maybe ban students or renters as well. Might stay longer than 2 nights but certainly they dont have a "stake in the surrounding community". Might as well ban hotels while you're at it. Again, trying to engineer who lives in your community is wrong IMO
- kimbernator 4y ago
  Honestly this feels a bit odd to read - I think the point is clear that communities benefit from having long-term residents, regardless of who they are. If my neighbor makes too much noise, I can go talk to them and we will have an understanding. If an airbnb makes too much noise, I can tell the current residents to quiet down but there will be new ones in a few days. The residents don't stand to face any meaningful consequences for being a disturbance to the neighbors, and the owner of the house likely doesn't live in the community either so if I talk to them, there's no incentive for them to try and reduce the disturbances. Airbnbs around my house are known for this being a big problem. This is the reason that zoning laws put hotels in commercial space instead of residential. I am not trying to "engineer who lives in my community", I am trying to engineer a community.
- munificent 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but given the unwarranted extreme language you're using, this is clearly a trigger issue for you independent of what the parent comment was saying. No one is talking about "rights", "control", "redlining", or dehumanization. All they are doing is observing that people like to live next to human beings they can form longer-term relationships with. This is the fundamental fabric of human society and there is nothing wrong with people desiring that. That doesn't necessarily mean they have any "right" to "control" or "engineer" it. But people who want to have deeper ties to a community (which has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success) have every reason to try to influence their neighborhood to enable that.
  - bko 4y ago
    If you're trying to "control" who I can allow stay at my house and for how long, you're infringing on what I deem to be my "rights". I don't get how its not about these things? > All they are doing is observing that people like to live next to human beings they can form longer-term relationships with. Maybe we should ban renters as well. Higher home ownership rates has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success. So why not nudge out renters? Curious where you draw the line and why.
    - kimbernator 4y ago
      > If you're trying to "control" who I can allow stay at my house and for how long, you're infringing on what I deem to be my "rights". I don't get how its not about these things? If you were to demolish your house and build a 3-story building in its place with a number of identical units within it and then ran it as a hotel, you would be in violation of zoning laws and would be required to stop. Would the enforcement of that law be an infringement on your rights? Should this behavior be allowed? If not, what is the fundamental difference between doing this and running an airbnb with a rotating door of extremely short-term visitors? > Maybe we should ban renters as well. Higher home ownership rates has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success. So why not nudge out renters? Don't blame the renters. Blame the landlords that hoard homes and make it impossible for renters to afford to make the transition to home ownership.
gongdzhauh 4y ago
The idea that a neighborhood's character needs to be preserved is exactly the kind of logic used to justify redlining. "Random" people should be able to buy property and use it in the same way that existing owners can.
- kimbernator 4y ago
  > The idea that a neighborhood's character needs to be preserved is exactly the kind of logic used to justify redlining. Who is talking about preserving a neighborhood's "character"? We're talking about preserving the concept of a residential area as opposed to abundance of homes being used as commercial hotel-like spaces. > "Random" people should be able to buy property and use it in the same way that existing owners can. Sorry, but is it not clear that this is my point?

bko 4y ago

They're not "random people". They're human beings. What's optimal time of stay? Maybe ban students or renters as well. Might stay longer than 2 nights but certainly they dont have a "stake in the surrounding community". Might as well ban hotels while you're at it. Again, trying to engineer who lives in your community is wrong IMO

kimbernator 4y ago
Honestly this feels a bit odd to read - I think the point is clear that communities benefit from having long-term residents, regardless of who they are. If my neighbor makes too much noise, I can go talk to them and we will have an understanding. If an airbnb makes too much noise, I can tell the current residents to quiet down but there will be new ones in a few days. The residents don't stand to face any meaningful consequences for being a disturbance to the neighbors, and the owner of the house likely doesn't live in the community either so if I talk to them, there's no incentive for them to try and reduce the disturbances. Airbnbs around my house are known for this being a big problem. This is the reason that zoning laws put hotels in commercial space instead of residential. I am not trying to "engineer who lives in my community", I am trying to engineer a community.
munificent 4y ago
I'm sorry, but given the unwarranted extreme language you're using, this is clearly a trigger issue for you independent of what the parent comment was saying. No one is talking about "rights", "control", "redlining", or dehumanization. All they are doing is observing that people like to live next to human beings they can form longer-term relationships with. This is the fundamental fabric of human society and there is nothing wrong with people desiring that. That doesn't necessarily mean they have any "right" to "control" or "engineer" it. But people who want to have deeper ties to a community (which has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success) have every reason to try to influence their neighborhood to enable that.
- bko 4y ago
  If you're trying to "control" who I can allow stay at my house and for how long, you're infringing on what I deem to be my "rights". I don't get how its not about these things? > All they are doing is observing that people like to live next to human beings they can form longer-term relationships with. Maybe we should ban renters as well. Higher home ownership rates has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success. So why not nudge out renters? Curious where you draw the line and why.
  - kimbernator 4y ago
    > If you're trying to "control" who I can allow stay at my house and for how long, you're infringing on what I deem to be my "rights". I don't get how its not about these things? If you were to demolish your house and build a 3-story building in its place with a number of identical units within it and then ran it as a hotel, you would be in violation of zoning laws and would be required to stop. Would the enforcement of that law be an infringement on your rights? Should this behavior be allowed? If not, what is the fundamental difference between doing this and running an airbnb with a rotating door of extremely short-term visitors? > Maybe we should ban renters as well. Higher home ownership rates has been shown time and time again to be critical for psychological health and societal success. So why not nudge out renters? Don't blame the renters. Blame the landlords that hoard homes and make it impossible for renters to afford to make the transition to home ownership.

gongdzhauh 4y ago

The idea that a neighborhood's character needs to be preserved is exactly the kind of logic used to justify redlining. "Random" people should be able to buy property and use it in the same way that existing owners can.

kimbernator 4y ago
> The idea that a neighborhood's character needs to be preserved is exactly the kind of logic used to justify redlining. Who is talking about preserving a neighborhood's "character"? We're talking about preserving the concept of a residential area as opposed to abundance of homes being used as commercial hotel-like spaces. > "Random" people should be able to buy property and use it in the same way that existing owners can. Sorry, but is it not clear that this is my point?