7 ms·

Claiming hotel regulation has no benefit to consumers is simply not true. Consider the perspective of a resident of San Francisco (like me). SF has a very limit

Claiming hotel regulation has no benefit to consumers is simply not true. Consider the perspective of a resident of San Francisco (like me). SF has a very limited amount of housing. We can debate all day about ways to fix that and impediments to building more (and more affordable) housing, but the simple facts right now are that there are a LOT more people who want to live in SF than there are housing units. Additionally, there are a lot of tourists that visit SF. Those two demands for places to sleep, from tourists and residents, are at odds. The price you can charge for a hotel room in SF is substantially greater than what you can charge on a nightly basis in stable rent. So what we're seeing happen in SF is people who have rental units that would normally be on the rental market are now pulling those off the rental market and putting them on the AirBnB market, which serves tourists instead of residents. Because frankly, why wouldn't you? If you can rent your place for $200/night to tourists you can make a hell of a lot more money than you can renting to someone for a year. The hotel regulations aren't only to help hotel consumers, they're to help the renters too. Now, you could argue the natural market economics should just play out and the city should allow as many hotels to exist as the market will support. But that's not a city I want to live in. I value prioritizing housing for residents instead of tourists.

tomjen3 14y ago
You may value that prioritization, but that isn't strange as you are a renter and so prefer things aligned as close as possible to your personal benefit. That is simple egoism, don't coat it in nice language.
- jrochkind1 14y ago
  Um, in exactly the same way that tourists prefering their interests to be prioritized is also 'egoism', right? Or property owners preferring their incomes to be maximized, just like renters preferring their rents to be minimized. So?
  - davidw 14y ago
    I'm not a "market fundamentalist" by a long shot, but markets generally do a pretty good job of balancing various interests like this. They're a lot better in a case like this than the government attempting to decide how many units must be available for which uses.
- ithcy2 14y ago
  >you are a renter and so prefer things aligned as close as possible to your personal benefit Non sequitur.
- makomk 14y ago
  Well, in the long term turning the housing into hotels screws everyone because the people who work at and maintain the hotels need somewhere to live too, as do the employees of businesses that bring tourists into the city...
temp453463343 14y ago
Thank god they aren't building more housing in SF - a temporary fix (b/c eventually you'll run out of housing again) to a non-problem. The NewYorkification of San Francisco would ruin the city. I talked about it more here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815087 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815087 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815537 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815537
- xxpor 14y ago
  You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. More people living in a smaller space is much more efficient, and therefore less polluting energy. San Francisco might be "ruined" by your definition, but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land? Zoning is central planning at it's worst.
  - temp453463343 14y ago
    > You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. Sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc. > but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land? Are you serious? There is the whole idea of community and sustainability. If a community deems a certain construction project detrimental to the overall health and wellbeing of its members then they can stop projects. If I don't want to live next to a highrise and the accompanying noise, traffic, pollution, I have a say in what my neighbor can build. I'm not personally telling people what to do (because I have no authority). I'm engaging in a public debate over the SF community's values and priorities.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc." Which is not created by suburban sprawl, either. You seem to (without support) indicate that this is not possible with denser communities.
malandrew 14y ago
The problem you described has a very simple solution. Grant more permits to increase the number of brand new housing units added to the market each year. The rate at which SF adds housing units given demand is absurd. In fact, you'd probably have many more small business opportunities in SF if the city were willing to add residential units faster.
- cube13 14y ago
  Where would you put them? The demand is IN SF, not in the hills outside, or in Oakland.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    How about building upwards? Learn to think in three dimensions.
    - cube13 14y ago
      Earthquake territory, which severely limits how far up you can go.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        Bullshit. That isn't a problem for Tokyo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama_night.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama... I remember someone from Vancouver saying the same thing about that city in a previous HN thread on this topic. Earthquakes are just an excuse used by NIMBYs who want to preserve their oh so precious "bay view".
      - davidw 14y ago
        Which is why the financial district was wiped off the map during the 1989 earthquake, whereas lower units such as those in the marina survived without problems?
        14y ago

tomjen3 14y ago

You may value that prioritization, but that isn't strange as you are a renter and so prefer things aligned as close as possible to your personal benefit. That is simple egoism, don't coat it in nice language.

jrochkind1 14y ago
Um, in exactly the same way that tourists prefering their interests to be prioritized is also 'egoism', right? Or property owners preferring their incomes to be maximized, just like renters preferring their rents to be minimized. So?
- davidw 14y ago
  I'm not a "market fundamentalist" by a long shot, but markets generally do a pretty good job of balancing various interests like this. They're a lot better in a case like this than the government attempting to decide how many units must be available for which uses.
ithcy2 14y ago
>you are a renter and so prefer things aligned as close as possible to your personal benefit Non sequitur.
makomk 14y ago
Well, in the long term turning the housing into hotels screws everyone because the people who work at and maintain the hotels need somewhere to live too, as do the employees of businesses that bring tourists into the city...

temp453463343 14y ago

Thank god they aren't building more housing in SF - a temporary fix (b/c eventually you'll run out of housing again) to a non-problem. The NewYorkification of San Francisco would ruin the city. I talked about it more here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815087 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815087 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815247 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815537 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4815537

xxpor 14y ago
You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. More people living in a smaller space is much more efficient, and therefore less polluting energy. San Francisco might be "ruined" by your definition, but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land? Zoning is central planning at it's worst.
- temp453463343 14y ago
  > You are literally arguing for the destruction of the planet when you argue against density. Sure cramming people in like sardines makes it easier to make things efficient - but it's very realistic to make less dense populations efficient/sustainable too. Urban developement isn't some kind of ecological optimization problem. There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc. > but how is it any of your right to tell people what they can and can not build on their land? Are you serious? There is the whole idea of community and sustainability. If a community deems a certain construction project detrimental to the overall health and wellbeing of its members then they can stop projects. If I don't want to live next to a highrise and the accompanying noise, traffic, pollution, I have a say in what my neighbor can build. I'm not personally telling people what to do (because I have no authority). I'm engaging in a public debate over the SF community's values and priorities.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "There are factors you are completely dismissing, like overall happiness, contribution to the community and the nation as a whole, cultural value generated etc." Which is not created by suburban sprawl, either. You seem to (without support) indicate that this is not possible with denser communities.

malandrew 14y ago

The problem you described has a very simple solution. Grant more permits to increase the number of brand new housing units added to the market each year. The rate at which SF adds housing units given demand is absurd. In fact, you'd probably have many more small business opportunities in SF if the city were willing to add residential units faster.

cube13 14y ago
Where would you put them? The demand is IN SF, not in the hills outside, or in Oakland.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  How about building upwards? Learn to think in three dimensions.
  - cube13 14y ago
    Earthquake territory, which severely limits how far up you can go.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      Bullshit. That isn't a problem for Tokyo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama_night.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Tokyo_Panorama... I remember someone from Vancouver saying the same thing about that city in a previous HN thread on this topic. Earthquakes are just an excuse used by NIMBYs who want to preserve their oh so precious "bay view".
    - davidw 14y ago
      Which is why the financial district was wiped off the map during the 1989 earthquake, whereas lower units such as those in the marina survived without problems?
      - 14y ago