3 ms·

> people are getting squeezed for living space and rising rents partially due to AirBnb taking those rentals off the market From what I've seen, short term ren

by pitaj 4y ago

> people are getting squeezed for living space and rising rents partially due to AirBnb taking those rentals off the market From what I've seen, short term rentals have negligible effects on the housing market. And restrictions on short term rentals have little to no effect on housing prices. It's just another scapegoat (like foreign owned housing) that people like to use because they can't accept the fact that the solution is to BUILD MORE HOUSING. (Reduce restrictions like exclusionary zoning and environmental/community reviews)

chollida1 4y ago
Well I did hedge my wording because AirBnB has different effects in different places, so there is no global effect that can be measured. If you live in a ski town or beach town then it probably has had far more effect than the locals looking to buy or rent would want. if you live in a small town with very little tourism then people may feel like you do that its a non factor. New York city seems to think that 10,000 distinct places to live will come back to the market, is 10,000 units in New York "negligible" to use your wording? I don't know but I'm guessing it will have some measurable effect. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/28/1145709106/nyc-could-lose-10-000-airbnb-listings-because-of-new-short-term-rental-regulatio https://www.npr.org/2022/12/28/1145709106/nyc-could-lose-10-...
- teddyh 4y ago
  “Locals”, heh. https://reallifecomics.com/comic.php?comic=february-17-2021 https://reallifecomics.com/comic.php?comic=february-17-2021
  - chollida1 4y ago
    Can you explain that comic? I don't see the word Local anywhere on it and I honestly don't get the joke.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      The joke (somewhat exaggerated) is that there are no actual local people who live there (i.e. in tourist towns which are small); all houses there are now Airbnb, leaving no houses for local people to live in. It follows that there are no such people as “locals”, which was the word used by the post I was replying to.
jeroenhd 4y ago
This analysis about the impact Airbnb was having on Amsterdam disagrees: https://www.ing.nl/zakelijk/kennis-over-de-economie/onze-economie/consument-en-de-economie/economische-berichten/2016/04/airbnb-heeft-flink-opwaarts-effect-op-huizenprijzen-in-toeristisch-amsterdam.html https://www.ing.nl/zakelijk/kennis-over-de-economie/onze-eco... The city has passed laws to keep down the amount of temporary rentals so the balance has undoubtably shifted by now. A later analysis by the same bank (https://bnb-beheer.nl/blog/2019/03/06/prijseffect-airbnb-op-woningprijs-amsterdam-flink-lager/ https://bnb-beheer.nl/blog/2019/03/06/prijseffect-airbnb-op-...) says as much.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  Ok, so ban AirBnB and more housing is available for people who want long term leases... but there's still a problem, because now we have a shortage of temporary housing. Any solution that isn't "build a fuckton more housing units" isn't a solution at all. We need enough housing for permanent residents AND people who prefer to live in AirBnBs. Often the AirBnB people are wealthy tourists who spend a lot and stimulate the local economy, so kicking them out is a horrible idea.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    > Often the AirBnB people are wealthy tourists who spend a lot and stimulate the local economy, so kicking them out is a horrible idea. Amsterdam specifically wants less tourists. They have a load of initiatives and policies to try reduce what they call "negative tourism" that are will just have the net effect of reducing overall tourism - the actual goal. Similar issues in Venice and some other European cities. Over tourism makes places less liveable for the residents who live - and vote - there.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    Obviously the solution is "build a million extra houses". However, it turns out building a million houses takes time. Until the houses are built, get rid of the temporary housing meant almost exclusively for tourists this particular city doesn't want, everybody wins. "Rich tourists" are good for purely tourist driven economies, but most cities don't exist to please the whims of tourists, and most local businesses in a wealthy economy aren't targeting rich tourists either. What actually happens is that family neighbourhoods are forced to deal with constant parties and drunk and loud tourists because some multimillionaire set up one of the rare available houses for his personal profit. I'm sure there are people who enjoy living in AirBnB's but that's not what AirBnB is even trying to accomplish. Hotels exist and are regulated for good reason. Tourists are put in touristy areas where businesses want to attract tourists, also for good reason. When dealing with a housing shortage, the local population is more important than tourists, unless there is no economy other than the tourist economy. Look at what happened to Venice, the city that exclusively exists because of tourists because of overtourism.
threeseed 4y ago
> From what I've seen, short term rentals have negligible effects on the housing market It changes depending on the location. Some places e.g. Byron Bay in Australia have been significantly affected by short term rentals.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  Maybe... though whenever I look closely it turns out that cities are suffering from structurally broken property markets, and short-term rentals are a convenient, highly visible scapegoat that puts the blame on something involving foreigners.
dixie_land 4y ago
It depends on the locality. It is easy to forget even popular "tourist destinations" have their local population before they became so popular. Short term rentals have a very real effect on housing markets in such places. Kauai is one of my favorite Hawaiian islands and has one of the strictest short term rental regulations. I truly believe if short term rentals are free for all it would end up being a billionaire's playground (more so than it already is) with no locals being able to afford housing at all.

by pitaj 4y ago

chollida1 4y ago

Well I did hedge my wording because AirBnB has different effects in different places, so there is no global effect that can be measured. If you live in a ski town or beach town then it probably has had far more effect than the locals looking to buy or rent would want. if you live in a small town with very little tourism then people may feel like you do that its a non factor. New York city seems to think that 10,000 distinct places to live will come back to the market, is 10,000 units in New York "negligible" to use your wording? I don't know but I'm guessing it will have some measurable effect. https://www.npr.org/2022/12/28/1145709106/nyc-could-lose-10-000-airbnb-listings-because-of-new-short-term-rental-regulatio https://www.npr.org/2022/12/28/1145709106/nyc-could-lose-10-...

teddyh 4y ago
“Locals”, heh. https://reallifecomics.com/comic.php?comic=february-17-2021 https://reallifecomics.com/comic.php?comic=february-17-2021
- chollida1 4y ago
  Can you explain that comic? I don't see the word Local anywhere on it and I honestly don't get the joke.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    The joke (somewhat exaggerated) is that there are no actual local people who live there (i.e. in tourist towns which are small); all houses there are now Airbnb, leaving no houses for local people to live in. It follows that there are no such people as “locals”, which was the word used by the post I was replying to.

jeroenhd 4y ago

This analysis about the impact Airbnb was having on Amsterdam disagrees: https://www.ing.nl/zakelijk/kennis-over-de-economie/onze-economie/consument-en-de-economie/economische-berichten/2016/04/airbnb-heeft-flink-opwaarts-effect-op-huizenprijzen-in-toeristisch-amsterdam.html https://www.ing.nl/zakelijk/kennis-over-de-economie/onze-eco... The city has passed laws to keep down the amount of temporary rentals so the balance has undoubtably shifted by now. A later analysis by the same bank (https://bnb-beheer.nl/blog/2019/03/06/prijseffect-airbnb-op-woningprijs-amsterdam-flink-lager/ https://bnb-beheer.nl/blog/2019/03/06/prijseffect-airbnb-op-...) says as much.

welshwelsh 4y ago
Ok, so ban AirBnB and more housing is available for people who want long term leases... but there's still a problem, because now we have a shortage of temporary housing. Any solution that isn't "build a fuckton more housing units" isn't a solution at all. We need enough housing for permanent residents AND people who prefer to live in AirBnBs. Often the AirBnB people are wealthy tourists who spend a lot and stimulate the local economy, so kicking them out is a horrible idea.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  > Often the AirBnB people are wealthy tourists who spend a lot and stimulate the local economy, so kicking them out is a horrible idea. Amsterdam specifically wants less tourists. They have a load of initiatives and policies to try reduce what they call "negative tourism" that are will just have the net effect of reducing overall tourism - the actual goal. Similar issues in Venice and some other European cities. Over tourism makes places less liveable for the residents who live - and vote - there.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Obviously the solution is "build a million extra houses". However, it turns out building a million houses takes time. Until the houses are built, get rid of the temporary housing meant almost exclusively for tourists this particular city doesn't want, everybody wins. "Rich tourists" are good for purely tourist driven economies, but most cities don't exist to please the whims of tourists, and most local businesses in a wealthy economy aren't targeting rich tourists either. What actually happens is that family neighbourhoods are forced to deal with constant parties and drunk and loud tourists because some multimillionaire set up one of the rare available houses for his personal profit. I'm sure there are people who enjoy living in AirBnB's but that's not what AirBnB is even trying to accomplish. Hotels exist and are regulated for good reason. Tourists are put in touristy areas where businesses want to attract tourists, also for good reason. When dealing with a housing shortage, the local population is more important than tourists, unless there is no economy other than the tourist economy. Look at what happened to Venice, the city that exclusively exists because of tourists because of overtourism.

threeseed 4y ago

> From what I've seen, short term rentals have negligible effects on the housing market It changes depending on the location. Some places e.g. Byron Bay in Australia have been significantly affected by short term rentals.

nerdbert 4y ago
Maybe... though whenever I look closely it turns out that cities are suffering from structurally broken property markets, and short-term rentals are a convenient, highly visible scapegoat that puts the blame on something involving foreigners.

dixie_land 4y ago

It depends on the locality. It is easy to forget even popular "tourist destinations" have their local population before they became so popular. Short term rentals have a very real effect on housing markets in such places. Kauai is one of my favorite Hawaiian islands and has one of the strictest short term rental regulations. I truly believe if short term rentals are free for all it would end up being a billionaire's playground (more so than it already is) with no locals being able to afford housing at all.