3 ms·
For a lot of these places there are enough houses for the people who want to live there. Or it's a whole hell of a lot closer. The issue is there's not enough h
by dorchadas 4y ago
For a lot of these places there are enough houses for the people who want to live there. Or it's a whole hell of a lot closer. The issue is there's not enough houses for the people who want to live there and all the tourists who feel entitled to be able to stay in a house on their vacation. A house that takes away from locals, and destroys any culture of the neighbourhood.
- johngladtj 4y agoSo there aren't enough houses. Also, why do you think you should be the arbiter of what "enough" is? What right do you have over the property of others?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dorchadas 4y ago> So there aren't enough houses. There are close to enough for the locals. The problem is when tourists feel entitled to houses, like I said. Stick them on the periphery, and let the locals actually live where they work. Instead, we're doing the opposite, and destroying cities and neighbourhoods and pricing out locals in the process. > What right do you have over the property of others? I suspect this is where we're going to inherently disagree. People don't own their property in a vacuum, nor do they (nor should they) have unlimited 'rights' to do what they want with it. We don't let people dump toxic waste or oil on their properties for good reasons, and I think extending this to short-term lets is perfectly sensible due to the overwhelmingly negative benefit it has on residents. Doubly so when its corporate landlords in question doing it.