7 ms·

On the flip side, the people staying in the AirBnB's tend to eat out more often and our patronizing local business. They're not taking any jobs, and the landlor

On the flip side, the people staying in the AirBnB's tend to eat out more often and our patronizing local business. They're not taking any jobs, and the landlord is still paying the property tax. It's essentially free money to your city. WFH is working out the same way. People are spreading out to towns that don't have jobs to offer but thanks to people who are WFH they're bringing in money from the outside that's helping to prop up the local economy. As those people move out of the cities that's freeing up housing to be available for those who want to live in the city or need to live in the city.

tech_ken 3y ago
My city's property taxes are among the lowest in the nation for an urban metro, so that's not really a big factor. However you're right that tourists spend a lot of money in our food+drink and entertainment industries, which has definitely had some positive effects in our overall "scene" and generates some good sales+use tax. On the other hand, we're not really starved for wealthy people who like to have a good time but we are starved for mid- to low- cost housing, so IMO it would be a better deal for the city to consolidate the tourism into dense hotels and leave all the charming 1.5 BRs for first-time buyers. > They're not taking any jobs My understanding was that you couldn't really "take" jobs (in the long-term anyways). I would imagine that increasing the volume of our labor force would only grow our overall economy (so long as we can house everyone)
dagw 3y ago
the people staying in the AirBnB's tend to eat out more often I doubt it. One of the reasons people choose AirBnB over hotels is that they want a kitchen so that they don't have to eat out. As to taxes, while the city is still getting the property tax, they're losing out on the hotel taxes that the people staying in the AirBnB would otherwise have paid. Plus the profits that are now going to AirBnB would otherwise have gone to the hotel owner/managers and thus been more likely to get spent in the city. So on net I'd say people staying in AirBnBs generate quite a bit less money for the city than if they'd stayed in a hotel. The only places that this sort argument works is for places that are so out of the way or unpopular that they simply don't really have hotels for people to stay in.
- taylodl 3y ago
  The city is still ahead on taxes. The biggest complaint being lodged against the AirBnB's is they're keeping housing values high and pricing people out of the market. If the AirBnB's were to go away then the local housing market would collapse - along with the property tax revenue associated with it. That's if the naysayers can be believed that AirBnB is having that dramatic of an effect on local housing costs.
Ekaros 3y ago
On other hand these migrants don't pay income tax to cities... Where as permanent residents do.
- triceratops 3y ago
  Most American cities don't have income taxes.

tech_ken 3y ago

My city's property taxes are among the lowest in the nation for an urban metro, so that's not really a big factor. However you're right that tourists spend a lot of money in our food+drink and entertainment industries, which has definitely had some positive effects in our overall "scene" and generates some good sales+use tax. On the other hand, we're not really starved for wealthy people who like to have a good time but we are starved for mid- to low- cost housing, so IMO it would be a better deal for the city to consolidate the tourism into dense hotels and leave all the charming 1.5 BRs for first-time buyers. > They're not taking any jobs My understanding was that you couldn't really "take" jobs (in the long-term anyways). I would imagine that increasing the volume of our labor force would only grow our overall economy (so long as we can house everyone)

dagw 3y ago

the people staying in the AirBnB's tend to eat out more often I doubt it. One of the reasons people choose AirBnB over hotels is that they want a kitchen so that they don't have to eat out. As to taxes, while the city is still getting the property tax, they're losing out on the hotel taxes that the people staying in the AirBnB would otherwise have paid. Plus the profits that are now going to AirBnB would otherwise have gone to the hotel owner/managers and thus been more likely to get spent in the city. So on net I'd say people staying in AirBnBs generate quite a bit less money for the city than if they'd stayed in a hotel. The only places that this sort argument works is for places that are so out of the way or unpopular that they simply don't really have hotels for people to stay in.

taylodl 3y ago
The city is still ahead on taxes. The biggest complaint being lodged against the AirBnB's is they're keeping housing values high and pricing people out of the market. If the AirBnB's were to go away then the local housing market would collapse - along with the property tax revenue associated with it. That's if the naysayers can be believed that AirBnB is having that dramatic of an effect on local housing costs.

Ekaros 3y ago

On other hand these migrants don't pay income tax to cities... Where as permanent residents do.

triceratops 3y ago
Most American cities don't have income taxes.