4 ms·

I need to? Thanks for the unnecessary correction, when it's pretty clear that my comment you are replying to includes the words "even in areas where holiday ho

I need to? Thanks for the unnecessary correction, when it's pretty clear that my comment you are replying to includes the words "even in areas where holiday home ownership and rental was common as a business". I don't know why it did not happen before. All I know is that the situation in coastal resort towns in Cornwall, Devon, and elsewhere in the UK changed utterly when Airbnb became a thing. I could guess that barrier to entry was always an issue before then; the relative complexity and process involved in listing a property with e.g. Hoseasons, who were the dominant player in the 80s and 90s, and who inspected properties and had greater requirements. But either way, Airbnb did unambiguously change things. Ask people who lived in Cornish towns whether they're even able to rent a room or a flat.

JackYoustra 2y ago
I mean, usually if thing popular, make more of thing until everyone can have it? I guess we could go with your solution of deliberately killing demand with bizarre mechanisms so only a few people can enjoy a holiday instead of pointing the blame where it demands: locals fighting tooth and nail to not build more. Nimbys are basically hukou advocates in disguise. After all, it's the only solution if you don't primarily place the blame on lack of construction.
- sgdfhijfgsdfgds 2y ago
  > make more of thing until everyone can have it? There are literal physical limits on this in many coastal villages and towns -- for example pick almost anywhere on the south west coast of the UK. Not only is the area on which houses can be built restrictive due to geography (and often geology), the transport infrastructure does not scale. New property building both has not caught up with, and probably cannot catch up with, short term demand. As it happens, a collapse seems likely, because local sentiment is turning against them so fast and because of general economic weakness; the number of "thriving holiday let" properties that are on the market now suggests that Airbnb's own accelerating rental costs problem is going to cause a bit of a bust. But that bust will not benefit most of the people in the areas affected where the price of a small house is twenty to thirty times the average salary of would-be-first-time-buyers. Those people are leaving, so there will instead be a ghost town. And the sheer number of residents who are temporary has destroyed the potential for long-term stable infrastructure businesses for residents. > Nimbys are basically hukou advocates in disguise. It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. They can no longer afford the houses at the prices at which they will be built and the rates at which they can be.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    > It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. NIMBYs are property owners who vote for restrictive housing development policy in order to prop up their own home values. Eliminate the NIMBYs and you end up with a lot more people who can have their own backyard.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Don't have to be property owners. Anyone who can show up at a meeting, vote, submit comments ...
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Anyone can, but existing property owners do.
      - JackYoustra 2y ago
        Sure, and anyone can make their own crypto implementation that's not based on reference, but what matters isn't the theory but the actual facts: the overwhelming majority of community meeting retirees are retired homeowners. Look at your local suburban school district's bond: you'll probably see some age-based exemption on paying to get support because old people are by far the most engaged. Is that democratic? In the sense that its based on votes of a voluntary electorate, yes. Is it the representative will? Clearly not! You want to cluster elections around high turnout to maximize representation.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      AirBnB did 'eliminate' the NIMBYs by sidestepping local zoning laws. And the outcome was bad for people living in these targets for mass tourism. Unless they were a YIMBY of course and wanted a hostel in their backyard. 'NIMBY' is like 'Karen' or 'boomer'. Some sort of convenient scapegoat, deserving or not.
      - JackYoustra 2y ago

JackYoustra 2y ago

I mean, usually if thing popular, make more of thing until everyone can have it? I guess we could go with your solution of deliberately killing demand with bizarre mechanisms so only a few people can enjoy a holiday instead of pointing the blame where it demands: locals fighting tooth and nail to not build more. Nimbys are basically hukou advocates in disguise. After all, it's the only solution if you don't primarily place the blame on lack of construction.

sgdfhijfgsdfgds 2y ago
> make more of thing until everyone can have it? There are literal physical limits on this in many coastal villages and towns -- for example pick almost anywhere on the south west coast of the UK. Not only is the area on which houses can be built restrictive due to geography (and often geology), the transport infrastructure does not scale. New property building both has not caught up with, and probably cannot catch up with, short term demand. As it happens, a collapse seems likely, because local sentiment is turning against them so fast and because of general economic weakness; the number of "thriving holiday let" properties that are on the market now suggests that Airbnb's own accelerating rental costs problem is going to cause a bit of a bust. But that bust will not benefit most of the people in the areas affected where the price of a small house is twenty to thirty times the average salary of would-be-first-time-buyers. Those people are leaving, so there will instead be a ghost town. And the sheer number of residents who are temporary has destroyed the potential for long-term stable infrastructure businesses for residents. > Nimbys are basically hukou advocates in disguise. It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. They can no longer afford the houses at the prices at which they will be built and the rates at which they can be.
- kelnos 2y ago
  > It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. NIMBYs are property owners who vote for restrictive housing development policy in order to prop up their own home values. Eliminate the NIMBYs and you end up with a lot more people who can have their own backyard.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Don't have to be property owners. Anyone who can show up at a meeting, vote, submit comments ...
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Anyone can, but existing property owners do.
    - JackYoustra 2y ago
      Sure, and anyone can make their own crypto implementation that's not based on reference, but what matters isn't the theory but the actual facts: the overwhelming majority of community meeting retirees are retired homeowners. Look at your local suburban school district's bond: you'll probably see some age-based exemption on paying to get support because old people are by far the most engaged. Is that democratic? In the sense that its based on votes of a voluntary electorate, yes. Is it the representative will? Clearly not! You want to cluster elections around high turnout to maximize representation.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    AirBnB did 'eliminate' the NIMBYs by sidestepping local zoning laws. And the outcome was bad for people living in these targets for mass tourism. Unless they were a YIMBY of course and wanted a hostel in their backyard. 'NIMBY' is like 'Karen' or 'boomer'. Some sort of convenient scapegoat, deserving or not.
    - JackYoustra 2y ago