3 ms·

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 spo

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.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        But that is the problem with your point: it is unlikely that any locale will copy Japan, and increase housing supply in the manner you describe, hence why it isn’t a solution. “You just have to do what no one else will do except this one example.”
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        Then they can sit around and wonder why they're having so many housing problems, and all the social and economic problems that stem from that. The solution is simple, and from what I've read, some places have done some work towards loosening restrictions, with good results.
        kelnos 2y ago

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.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        But that is the problem with your point: it is unlikely that any locale will copy Japan, and increase housing supply in the manner you describe, hence why it isn’t a solution. “You just have to do what no one else will do except this one example.”
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        Then they can sit around and wonder why they're having so many housing problems, and all the social and economic problems that stem from that. The solution is simple, and from what I've read, some places have done some work towards loosening restrictions, with good results.
        kelnos 2y ago