8 ms·

Short-term rentals are hollowing out communities with loose restrictions

• hooverd 2y ago
  > If we want to address the many environmental crises that we’re in right now, housing is one of the best ways to do that—to stand up and say that housing is a human right and that empty properties shouldn’t be investment properties. All the things that make a community run should be accessible within walking distance, biking distance, transit distance. That's nice I guess. Zero mention of zoning or any structural forces. Let's just make housing a human right and that'll do it.
  • CalRobert 2y ago
    I wonder if making it a human right would allow court challenges to zoning, parking minimums, draconian architectural rules, etc.
    • wincy 2y ago
      I want to invoke my human right to live in a place with the population density of the late great Kowloon Walled City. Less glibly, just by cutting regulations I’m sure you could get affordable housing in a place like Toronto, but wow the people who think housing is a human right would howl and scream about 10m^2 apartment high rises. I got the 10m^2 number from the size of some Tokyo apartments. The average apartment size in Toronto, by contrast is ~60m^2.
      • appreciatorBus 2y ago
        “Cutting regulations” implies the current rules are intended to produce good outcomes, for instance, abundant large apartments for all. If that were true, I would agree with your skepticism, but I would urge you to consider that they might not be. The history of land use suggests that they were explicitly designed to exclude, and designed to raise housing costs. Early boosters in the 1920’s were not shy about saying that increasing housing costs was the goal. We should celebrate ridding ourselves of such “regulations”
      • eschaton 2y ago
        Achieving this by cutting regulation would get you the other aspects of Kowloon Walled City too, the more horrifying ones.
      • seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        2-3 tatami mats (95 sqf, < 9 sqm) sized apartments would be a great idea for kids who just need housing. Most people in the USA would still demand heat and bathroom in the apartment, or maybe just in the same building. There are apartments in Tokyo that lack heat and a shower in the same building, shared toilet, you go to the local bath house if you want to take a shower. This kind of housing could prevent lots of single people from falling into homelessness and probably drugs (but they can't keep a dog or cohabitate, and it doesn't really work for families).
    • eschaton 2y ago
      That’s exactly what’s meant by “make housing a human right”—the law, at all levels, would need to comport with its protection.
    • darioush 2y ago
      It doesn't need to be a human right, we just need to regulate housing to be owned by individuals and mandate a limit for how many residences one has. This is because due to the scarcity of homes and that they cannot be manipulated or printed out of thin air and lent short on a computer, they have become tools of speculation, so the regulation is justified.
  • seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    > Let's just make housing a human right and that'll do it. How would that right read? Maybe “Every Canadian has the right to housing in the desirable neighborhoods of Toronto”? I’m not sure if that is really feasible.
    • dpbriggs 2y ago
      "Dignity for minimum wage" may be a more realistic tagline. It's not particularly good faith to say it's a detached house in Toronto. We're sliding towards workhouses of the 1800s. Policy should lean towards a one bedroom apartment being achievable for all of the working class.
    • Panzer04 2y ago
      OP is a little ambiguous, but I think they're being sarcastic.
    • appreciatorBus 2y ago
      It’s a two parter: “Every Canadian has a right to negotiate to rent or buy housing in any neighbourhood in Canada” “Every Canadian has the right to build as much housing as they want in any neighborhood in Canada.” More pithily, if we want housing to be a human right, then building housing also has to be a human right, one that cannot be vetoed away because your neighbours don’t like it. Ofc not everyone gets what they want, and not everyone can live in Shaughnessy or Mount Royal. But it does not follow from this that it makes sense to ban all forms of buildings except houses, like we do now, on most land in all cities in North America.
      • seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        How do they build as much housing as they want without land and utilities to support that? Are you suggesting some sort of libertarian slum that grows without support from the government? More density is great, I’m not against that. Making the government support that is also a good idea (via transit and utility build out). But after it’s done, Toronto will probably only be as affordable as Hong Kong where that’s already done, where even a substandard cafe will set you back. Or maybe Tokyo, which is more sane (you can get a 2 tatami unheated room for $500/month, FYI I would love to live in Tokyo).
  • Panzer04 2y ago
    "housing a human right" epitomises a feel good do nothing platitude that won't fix the problem. Fixing the problem involves building more so supply isn't an issue and accepting tha tin some areas housing is unfortunately just going to be pricier. Wish economic literacy was more widespread :/
    • hooverd 2y ago
      I agree. I don't think my sarcasm carrier over text.
• CalRobert 2y ago
  The argument in the article seems to be that supply-side arguments (there aren't enough homes) don't explain housing prices, but would it not make sense that in this case there aren't enough hotels/short term condos, etc? I admit I am biased, I usually hate staying in hotels and when I'm traveling I often want to be near family, so a house or apartment nearby where I can walk is better than a hotel where I have to drive.
  • dcdc123 2y ago
    I’m a full time nomad and stay in airbnbs and similar almost full time going on four years now. I used to rent my house but finally sold it so I figure I’m a net zero on the housing issue. I also like to spend a few weeks to a month in a walkable residential neighborhood and get to know it a bit. You can’t usually do that in hotels.
    • addicted 2y ago
      You’re quite literally exemplifying the issue described in the article which is homes being used for short term rentals rather than people who are there for the long term and form communities.
      • apwell23 2y ago
        build more housing to "form communities" then. You can't have it both ways. NIMBYs crying about airbnbs is the most ironic thing in this whole "debate".
        • eesmith 2y ago
          Yes, you’re quite literally describing the solution described in the article: "There needs to be an express focus on building for people who actually live in a place. Once you give the market free rein to build for anyone, then you’re just hoping that it trickles down to people. But increasingly, housing is seen as a commodity." That you agree would make you one of the crying NIMBYs, it would seem.
      • 2y ago
• monkeywork 2y ago
  The problem I often see in these discussions is a lack of conversation around key areas: 1. Why are short-term rental units so popular with the renters? Why has the traditional market in this space fallen off and what can they do to adjust to new expectations by consumers. 2. Why are short-term rental units so popular with the owners? In the Toronto area for example I've heard from several unit owners that they would rather lose money than rent in the trad manner due to how far the rental laws have swung that makes evictions nearly impossible. 3. Specifically here in Canada these sorts of conversations always feel like a smoke screen or a way to find a useful idiot to get the masses angry with rather than addressing the core problem. In Canada our core issue is immigration policies that over the last 2 decades haven't been linked in anyway with capacity of housing, schools, healthcare etc.
  • apwell23 2y ago
    I use it because they have kitchen. It lets me eat healthy food on my travel for resonable cost.
    • wincy 2y ago
      Same. I’m traveling with our family of four tonight to visit an elderly relative, we’re meeting halfway. If we stayed in a hotel, we’d need two rooms, we’d have to pay for restaurant food. My wife has a Walmart grocery pickup order we’ll grab when we get there. We’ll eat good food and not break the bank. Also, although we looked, there’s no obvious “third space” we could meet at and hang out for 8 hours or so. The Airbnb is the best value hands down. We get to live in another city for two days.
      • mschuster91 2y ago
        > The Airbnb is the best value hands down. We get to live in another city for two days. Don't y'all have stuff like legit short term rental apartments in the US?! Here in Europe, almost every tourist destination will have such places, you can find and book them on the aptly named website. Hell in a pinch there's also what we call "Monteurzimmer", basically a hostel with a few shared kitchens, they're aimed for tradespeople from out of town during the week, and on weekends they're a cheap stay for travelers on a budget. All of these are legitimate licensed operations that pay taxes, have to follow fire and general safety codes, and don't annoy their neighbors.
• xnx 2y ago
  Alternate title: Lack of Government Interference Allows Properties to be put to Highest and Best Use Edit: More for discussion: For those who have long lived in locations that are now desirable, should it be illegal for them to profit from their good luck and/or foresight? Should desirable locations be limited to the exclusive use of those who were there first? Shouldn't more people get the opportunity to visit Bozeman Montana and have somewhere to stay?
  • multjoy 2y ago
    Are short term lets the 'best' use, or the one that allows the owner of a scarce commodity to make as much money as possible to the detriment of the community in which the commodity is located?
    • brendoelfrendo 2y ago
      This is HN: there is a large class of users who do not see a distinction between "best" and "most extractive."
    • Panzer04 2y ago
      If short term letting is more profitable that necessarily implies it's the best use. Part of the issue seems to be that owners might accept lower profits from short term rentals to avoid the hassles of long term renting though (like a shitty tenant that becomes a nightmare)
  • alistairSH 2y ago
    Highest, maybe. Best? Debatable. For the owner? For society?
  • kec 2y ago
    Often-illegal hotels which largely circumvent taxes to enrich some landlords and possibly the local tourism industry (at the expense of everyone in the community who requires housing) is almost certainly not the best use of limited housing resources.
  • mschuster91 2y ago
• ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  Apartments are for living in, not for "unregulated hotels". I don't want a new group of partying people every few days in my apartment building, with the loud music and yelling at 3 in the morning. With long-term neigbors, you can argue a few times and then reach some middle ground, with someone there for 2, 3 days, you can't. Move the tourists to hotels, let hotel security deal with them. There are many reasons for housing problems, and airbnb is one of them... not the largest, but banning short-term rentals in residential apartment buildings would solve other problems too.
  • apwell23 2y ago
    Thats what HOAs are for. If you live in no hoa house then its none of your business whats happening in neghbibors house.
    • ajsnigrutin 2y ago
      This is far from true. There are many things you cannot do in residential neigborhoods, if nothing else, it's a residential not a commercial property, so a house, not a hotel (or a store, chemical factory etc.)
• EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
  That's just usual xenophobic nonsense. Did those bad hombres turistos eat all the dogs in your town?
• amazingamazing 2y ago
  People will do anything other than the solution - remove zoning entirely. Build. The end. Developers will not spend money building things that will not be successfully rented out, interests on this issue are already aligned. People whining about hypothetical ugly buildings or improper structures ignore reality in the USA. The handwringing on affordable housing, short term rentals are just silly distractions. More and more I’m reminded of “The Good Place”, where the main character goes to the (actual) Good Place and turns out no one goes there due to endless bickering…
  • llamaimperative 2y ago
    We could also mass-produce beautiful buildings. The Brooklyn Heights brownstones, quintessential beautiful urbanism, were mass-produced for cheap. Euclidean zoning is an unmitigated disaster. Pushing for developers to build enjoyable environments for humans is not.
    • amazingamazing 2y ago
      Beautiful buildings…? Enjoy your fantasies while little gets done in the real world, then. Endless committee meetings blocking viable developments while people bicker that proposals are not beautiful enough. Sigh. The attitude here around conditional housing is exactly why we’re in this predicament. Luckily for myself and others on here we already own housing, but if you don’t and agree with the parent you’re shooting yourself in the foot.
      • llamaimperative 2y ago
        Absolute goofball stuff buddy. You, “realist”: the solution to people successfully blocking development is to convince them buildings cannot and should not be beautiful Me, in fantasy land: Here’s a specific example of a cost-effective, mass-produced neighborhood that is considered one of the most beautiful in the entire country, we should do more of that. The more you perpetuate the myth that cost-effective building needs to be ugly, the more resistance you’re going to produce… obviously. An imperative to build beautiful doesn’t actually necessitate committee after committee. Stop propagating myths that are destructive to your own priorities, lol.
• Hilift 2y ago
  Our area restrictions and homesteader tax exemptions. But there's plenty of places where "government regulations" aren't the order of the day. Also if an area is economically depressed, the government isn't going to engage in sweeping reforms if the owners are one or two property owner types. The government is planning on deporting 11 million people, so this could open up some housing vacancies.
  • llamaimperative 2y ago
    While also crippling the home construction and renovation industries which are already extremely constrained on labor. I am doubtful this will net out to positive change on housing supply, especially considering the size of families that recent migrants typically cohabitate with.
  • raducu 2y ago
    > The government is planning on deporting 11 million people I don't know much about the USA, but I thought the whole deportation thing is some kind of meme/joke, people really think that's going to actually happen?
    • scheme271 2y ago
      Seems unlikely and catastrophic in many ways but it's Trump so who knows? Quite a few of his picks seem to be willing to at the very least give it a try.
• jeffbee 2y ago
  Maybe, but there is a lot of bad logic and fuzzy thinking blended into this article. Describing rents as "above-market rates" is one of the dead giveaways of a nonsense political/economic mental model.
• duxup 2y ago
  Even before we had the big companies doing it an HOA I lived in put in a lot of work to ban short term rentals and establish some rules for subletting. We had two condos that were constantly some kind of party house folks would rent, a few others that were more occasional. Visitors would leave trash out, park in other people's spots, loud at all hours. They didn't care, none of their mess had any impact on the visitors so they did whatever they wanted. The handful of folks renting out what were all of 6 or so units were very vocal trying to lower HOA fees and so on ... they didn't care about long term sustainability of the road in our neighborhood or maintaining the lawn or even insurance coverage. Had to go through a lot of work establishing new rules and getting everyone to vote on it but it was worth it.
  • nradov 2y ago
    HN users love to complain about HOAs being overly restrictive but they can play a valuable role in keeping AirBnB trash out of residential communities. I'm glad that my HOA has banned short-term rentals from the start.
    • voisin 2y ago
      > keeping AirBnB trash out of residential communities Why not ban the activities you would classify as “trash” (presumably obnoxious behaviour) which can come from owners or short or long term renters, rather than focus on short term renters only? It seems akin to banning driving from bars, rather than banning drunk driving.
      • Arainach 2y ago
        The mere existence of short term rentals is a societal and neighborhood-level problems. Banning the behaviors requires enforcement every time. It means someone has to sit around, suffer the problem, document it, go through processes to create a violation, maybe fine the owner (who will likely contest it and waste more time and money), and then still probably be unable to collect. Then the short term renter leaves, a new one comes in, and all the neighbors get the same problem over and over. Endless suffering and endless work. In Washington state, our HOA has talked to multiple management firms familiar with the case law who say that unless an owner is behind on dues, and unless unpaid fines are in the high thousands of dollars, there is no consequence for the homeowners not paying the fines and we have no way to collect.
• darioush 2y ago
  I somehow question these "community vibes", they certainly benefit from the presence of the tourist/nomad economically, but they also want to project a wholesome higher moral ground that's only attainable to "those in it for the long term". Is it really about a sense of community or just that it's easier to redirect anger at housing affordability to "people who are new or won't stay around long enough" than to address issues like corporations buying up housing supply or unrestricted monetary policy making home ownership impossible for almost everyone.
  • duxup 2y ago
    I lived in a place that had short term rentals. The visitors don't give a damn about the people living there. They left out trash, speed through the neighborhood, were loud at all hours ... because it didn't matter if they upset the neighbors, they'd never see them again. The folks renting out the places wanted the most profit possible so they did not care about paying their fees or maintenance and etc. The incentives for someone invested in living there and someone just there for a weekend / week creates different incentives.
    • darioush 2y ago
      Why don't all these long term community people have a talk with the long term owner and have them not rent their place? To be honest, it sounds like there is no community whatsoever to begin with, at least not one that the long term community members get any say in what happens. I wonder if all the people who were renting their vacation homes out stopped doing it, what would happen to the restaurant traffic in the area and who would shop at the souvenir shop? In fact I greatly wonder what the source of economic activity would be in such "destination towns" if we cut off tourism.
      • duxup 2y ago
        Rental owners didn’t care, it was a business for them, I know because talking to them is easier than the hassle we went through and we tried.
• mark_sz 2y ago
  We live in the UK, in our own home, though we’re still paying off the mortgage. I’m a software developer working in a hybrid arrangement (part office, part home), and I live here with my partner and our daughter. A few years ago, the family next door were evicted with just a few weeks’ notice after the landlord sold the property to an "investor"—it was his second house on our street. The investor spent 10 months renovating the house himself and turned it into a short-term rental. For us, those 10 months were a nightmare: drilling, hammering, and building noise from early mornings to midnight, seven days a week. Despite this, we didn’t complain, as we wanted to establish a good relationship with the new owner. He reassured us that the property would only be rented out to families. But then the first guests arrived—on the night before New Year’s Eve. It was a group of people ready to party. That first night, they partied until 4am. We thought, “Alright, they’ll have their New Year’s Eve celebration and move on.” But no, the parties continued on New Year’s Eve and beyond. From then on, it’s been one group after another—loud, late-night parties and noisy families. We’ve lost countless nights of sleep. My partner, my daughter, and I were all constantly exhausted. For eight months, we tried dealing with this directly with the owner. We asked him to soundproof the walls, even offering to soundproof ours to help. I spent my own money soundproofing one room in our house. But after I told him what we’d done, he refused to do anything on his side, saying that my soundproofing solved the issue—when it clearly hadn’t. We could still hear everything, especially as there’s a hot tub in the garden, which guests often use late into the night. When it became clear that the owner wasn’t going to help, I filed a complaint with the council. I explained that the property was being run without proper planning permission and causing significant disruption to us and other neighbours. Unfortunately, the owner found out about the complaint and started sending us offensive messages, targeting both us and other neighbours. Despite reporting this to the council, nothing has changed. Two years ago, we bought a campervan, and now, whenever we see a large group of people arriving next door, we leave and sleep in the campervan. Imagine that—being forced out of your own home just to get a proper night’s sleep. Even now, the council says they’ll “look into it,” but we’re still waiting for action. We even left our house over Christmas this year just to get some peace and quiet. This is what life is like living next to an unregulated short-term rental. For us, it’s not just about the noise—it’s about the mental and emotional toll it’s taken on our family. It’s hard to explain this to people who’ve never experienced it themselves, but I hope this sheds some light on the reality of these situations. Investors and short-term lets are about more than money—they can have a devastating impact on the lives of the people around them.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• biomcgary 2y ago
  I think owner-operated mother-in-law suites and similar allow neighborhoods to strike a nice balance between long-term community commitment and supporting reasonable amounts of of tourism. My wife and I host an Airbnb just outside the city limits of Flagstaff. We have two houses on the property and live in one. Our listing makes it clear that we live on the property. Our neighbors never complain. There is an Airbnb two doors down that regularly generates complaints due to a remote owner.
• cyberax 2y ago
  The areas that he mentioned are touristy places, with low density, low land prices, and low regulatory burdens. It's _easy_ to build more there. If you're desperate, you can just buy a plot of land and put a mobile home there. But it turns out that 50-60% of people in these locations are renters. And about a half of them are overburdened (more than 30% of income goes to rent). The reality is that the short-term rentals expose dirt-poor communities to people with higher incomes. And the way to fix this is NOT to ban higher incomes from moving into low-income communities. Quite the opposite. We need to make more opportunities in these kinds of communities. Promote remote work, give tax breaks to companies that want to build offices in these areas, etc.
• switch007 2y ago
  Tangentially, a big reason I dislike hotels particularly the UK is the trend of removing windows that open and generally getting sick from the rooms. Lots of fire retardants, plus the residual cleaning chemicals in the sheets. The more modern or renovated a hotel, the more likely this is I often get chest pains and watery eyes from hotel rooms, compounded by the lack of fresh air All because the hotel wants to save a few £ in case someone leaves the window open with the aircon on And the reason fire retardants are so heavily used is because the chemical companies heavily lobbied for it years ago, plus manufacturers love being able to use cheaper materials and methods then just dousing in a cheap chemical to achieve the specification