4 ms·

Exactly. The problem there is the same as the problem in every city where housing costs have gone way up: they aren't building enough new units. It's really a

Exactly. The problem there is the same as the problem in every city where housing costs have gone way up: they aren't building enough new units. It's really as simple as that; it's a simply supply-and-demand issue. And generally the reason they aren't building new units is because of zoning restrictions.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
So destroy demand for uses that are discretionary instead of non discretionary. Vacation travel accommodations aren’t a right, and tourists aren’t part of the local electorate. Airbnb isn’t going to magically put more supply on the market, only cause existing supply to be used for short term rentals. The benefit of a ban need not be extraordinary to justify, only a net positive.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Why do you need to regulate it at all? If you allow land to be used for hotels or housing equally, and don't slap huge taxes on hotel rooms just to pay for sports stadiums, then the market will sort things out and it won't be cheaper to stay in an AirBnB instead of a hotel. It works fine here in Japan: AirBnB isn't a big thing here except maybe in rural places not well served by hotels.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Because it is the right of the local citizens and community to choose to do so if they deem the action to be appropriate. They do not need to justify the bans to anyone outside of their community or voting boundaries. The evidence is robust that “the market will sort things out” is not accurate. Capital and regulatory evasion will always move faster.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      So if the local citizens ban minorities from living there, that's OK with you?
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        This is not a good faith argument, minorities are not a type of housing. Someone’s holiday is not a protected class.
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        Your argument is bad-faith. Localities vote for zoning regulations, which have the effect of increasing housing prices and keeping (generally poorer) minorities out.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Can you explain how that is relevant to short term rental bans and voters supporting them?
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        My whole point is that short-term rental bans aren't going to fix the fundamental problem, which is the lack of housing supply. It's just a feel-good measure to make politicians look like they're doing something useful, and sticking it to the tourists makes angry locals feel better. The parent comment I initially replied to showed how the math doesn't work: adding housing for ~25k people in a city with 1.6M people isn't going to make some huge difference in housing costs. If you want stable housing prices, the answer is very simple: copy Japan. Stop restricting the construction of new housing units, and fix the regulations so housing developers can build more units for people to live in. It's the same story in cities around the world, except in Japan, because all these other places want to restrict the supply of housing, usually using the argument about local voter's "rights" and their prerogative to make regulations restricting housing. This is exactly what the NIMBYs in the SanFran bay area have been doing, to "protect" their property values, and the result is astronomical housing costs.
- kelnos 2y ago
  You're missing the point: shutting down short-term renting will not really move the needle. What's usually the case is that even if you put those 10k units (or whatever) back on the normal long-term rental (or buy-to-occupy) market, prices will stay roughly the same. You need to build 100k new homes (or more!) to actually reduce home prices. The demand will not even be remotely satisfied by banning STRs. Existing homeowners don't want new housing built, because it'll reduce their home value. Homeowners tend to vote more than renters do, and tourists of course don't get a vote. Airbnb is a convenient bogeyman to distract people from the garbage zoning laws and barriers to development already in place. The problem is pretty much always NIMBYs.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I'm not missing the point. I'm asserting that if locals want to ban short term rentals, they can, and there is nothing anyone outside of the jurisdiction can do about it. Arguing over whether the bans move the needle is immaterial, although you are free to complain about it, as it is the only recourse available.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I'm not sure what the point of your argument is then. Locals can vote for all kinds of things, smart or dumb. They could vote on whether to ban the color purple on storefronts, for instance, though (IMO) it would be a stupid law to pass. This discussion is about AirBnB and housing prices, so just loudly proclaiming "locals can vote for policies they want!" isn't productive here at all. The entire point of this discussion is to argue the merits of these initiatives.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

So destroy demand for uses that are discretionary instead of non discretionary. Vacation travel accommodations aren’t a right, and tourists aren’t part of the local electorate. Airbnb isn’t going to magically put more supply on the market, only cause existing supply to be used for short term rentals. The benefit of a ban need not be extraordinary to justify, only a net positive.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Why do you need to regulate it at all? If you allow land to be used for hotels or housing equally, and don't slap huge taxes on hotel rooms just to pay for sports stadiums, then the market will sort things out and it won't be cheaper to stay in an AirBnB instead of a hotel. It works fine here in Japan: AirBnB isn't a big thing here except maybe in rural places not well served by hotels.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Because it is the right of the local citizens and community to choose to do so if they deem the action to be appropriate. They do not need to justify the bans to anyone outside of their community or voting boundaries. The evidence is robust that “the market will sort things out” is not accurate. Capital and regulatory evasion will always move faster.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    So if the local citizens ban minorities from living there, that's OK with you?
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      This is not a good faith argument, minorities are not a type of housing. Someone’s holiday is not a protected class.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        Your argument is bad-faith. Localities vote for zoning regulations, which have the effect of increasing housing prices and keeping (generally poorer) minorities out.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Can you explain how that is relevant to short term rental bans and voters supporting them?
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        My whole point is that short-term rental bans aren't going to fix the fundamental problem, which is the lack of housing supply. It's just a feel-good measure to make politicians look like they're doing something useful, and sticking it to the tourists makes angry locals feel better. The parent comment I initially replied to showed how the math doesn't work: adding housing for ~25k people in a city with 1.6M people isn't going to make some huge difference in housing costs. If you want stable housing prices, the answer is very simple: copy Japan. Stop restricting the construction of new housing units, and fix the regulations so housing developers can build more units for people to live in. It's the same story in cities around the world, except in Japan, because all these other places want to restrict the supply of housing, usually using the argument about local voter's "rights" and their prerogative to make regulations restricting housing. This is exactly what the NIMBYs in the SanFran bay area have been doing, to "protect" their property values, and the result is astronomical housing costs.
kelnos 2y ago
You're missing the point: shutting down short-term renting will not really move the needle. What's usually the case is that even if you put those 10k units (or whatever) back on the normal long-term rental (or buy-to-occupy) market, prices will stay roughly the same. You need to build 100k new homes (or more!) to actually reduce home prices. The demand will not even be remotely satisfied by banning STRs. Existing homeowners don't want new housing built, because it'll reduce their home value. Homeowners tend to vote more than renters do, and tourists of course don't get a vote. Airbnb is a convenient bogeyman to distract people from the garbage zoning laws and barriers to development already in place. The problem is pretty much always NIMBYs.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I'm not missing the point. I'm asserting that if locals want to ban short term rentals, they can, and there is nothing anyone outside of the jurisdiction can do about it. Arguing over whether the bans move the needle is immaterial, although you are free to complain about it, as it is the only recourse available.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    I'm not sure what the point of your argument is then. Locals can vote for all kinds of things, smart or dumb. They could vote on whether to ban the color purple on storefronts, for instance, though (IMO) it would be a stupid law to pass. This discussion is about AirBnB and housing prices, so just loudly proclaiming "locals can vote for policies they want!" isn't productive here at all. The entire point of this discussion is to argue the merits of these initiatives.