4 ms·

>People who bought houses in residential neighborhoods did so pricing in the fact that those neighborhoods would not host hotels. but they didn't price in the

>People who bought houses in residential neighborhoods did so pricing in the fact that those neighborhoods would not host hotels. but they didn't price in the risk of technological innovation like AirBNB. the corner stone in your logic (and in modern economy) is property rights. With my background (USSR), i'm used to think of property rights not of as something God given, instead as of something that was invented at some point and has been very useful so far in the development of our civilization. The property rights itself has evolved, from slavery societies to the modern day, from people as a property to ideas and RF spectrum being considered as property. The property rights will continue to evolve, and probably, God forbid - my townhouse is well over-water now, real estate rights disappear, while rights for DNA or human soul(mental footprint, dreams, etc..), something like this will come, or one day property rights, as exclusive license on something, will just stop being useful for human civilization at all.

wavefunction 13y ago
>>but they didn't price in the risk of technological innovation like AirBNB Actually that's what they did, since residential usage like AirBNB is generally against zoning in these areas. And you're focused on the selfish aspects of property rights without considering the benefits towards the commons they can confer, like keeping quiet residential areas quiet residential areas rather than high-traffic transient areas just because someone threw up a website.
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Actually that's what they did, since residential usage like AirBNB is generally against zoning in these areas. you're missing my point that property rights and laws(zoning) change with (in response, forced by) technological development and innovation. >And you're focused on the selfish aspects of property rights without considering the benefits towards the commons they can confer again, my point was that specific property rights have their time when they are actually helping advancing the civilization, yet they are meaningless before their time and delay progress after. As AirBNB helps more fully utilize buildings, it seems it is a plus for civilization and the laws/zoning preventing effective use of resources start to become obstacles in the way of progress.
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    Your comment didn't provide any support for the notion that property rights evolve in response to innovation. Ending slavery is more of a moral awakening. In fact, Wikipedia claims that the cotton gin, invented in 1793, actually led to more slavery in the South.
rayiner 13y ago
I'm not saying that the property rights must absolutely take precedence. I'm saying that you can't just derisively chalk it all up to lobbying. Zoning restrictions shouldn't categorically override things like AirBnB, but you can't just flip a switch and upend everything. People have legitimate settled expectations and you have to deal with those while moving forward.

wavefunction 13y ago

>>but they didn't price in the risk of technological innovation like AirBNB Actually that's what they did, since residential usage like AirBNB is generally against zoning in these areas. And you're focused on the selfish aspects of property rights without considering the benefits towards the commons they can confer, like keeping quiet residential areas quiet residential areas rather than high-traffic transient areas just because someone threw up a website.

VladRussian2 13y ago
>Actually that's what they did, since residential usage like AirBNB is generally against zoning in these areas. you're missing my point that property rights and laws(zoning) change with (in response, forced by) technological development and innovation. >And you're focused on the selfish aspects of property rights without considering the benefits towards the commons they can confer again, my point was that specific property rights have their time when they are actually helping advancing the civilization, yet they are meaningless before their time and delay progress after. As AirBNB helps more fully utilize buildings, it seems it is a plus for civilization and the laws/zoning preventing effective use of resources start to become obstacles in the way of progress.
- euroclydon 13y ago
  Your comment didn't provide any support for the notion that property rights evolve in response to innovation. Ending slavery is more of a moral awakening. In fact, Wikipedia claims that the cotton gin, invented in 1793, actually led to more slavery in the South.

rayiner 13y ago

I'm not saying that the property rights must absolutely take precedence. I'm saying that you can't just derisively chalk it all up to lobbying. Zoning restrictions shouldn't categorically override things like AirBnB, but you can't just flip a switch and upend everything. People have legitimate settled expectations and you have to deal with those while moving forward.