5 ms·

While breaking the law is generally a bad idea and generally one should be punished for it, I was disappointed that both the article and comments on the article

While breaking the law is generally a bad idea and generally one should be punished for it, I was disappointed that both the article and comments on the article didn't delve into whether it is a 'good and fair' law in the first place. I understand the ambiguity of a tenant virtually subleasing a property, which is a clause normally either allowed or not allowed in a tenant's lease, but the blanket ban of renting a room for a short number of days seems like a law that hotel lobbyists worked hard to get in place.

rayiner 13y ago
That's a kind of ad-hominem attack on a law. Just because the hotel lobbyists might favor it doesn't mean it's not a good or fair law. The fact of the matter is that these sorts of provisions are supported not just by hotel lobbyists,[1] but property owners generally. Short-term renters reduce property value in neighborhoods, and property owners love measures to ban such rentals. [1] Invoking the specter of "hotel lobbyists" is intensely amusing to me. If hotels had such good lobbyists, cities wouldn't have almost universally exorbitant (over 14% in NYC) hospitality taxes, which quite negatively affect the hotel industry.
- sillysaurus3 13y ago
  What's an example of any law that's currently in place which you feel is unjust or unfair?
  - noobiemcfoob 13y ago
    I'm uncertain if you are addressing me or rayiner, but marriage equality (or more so bans against) is an easy one without even straining. Do you mean to imply that laws are inherently just and fair?
    - sillysaurus3 13y ago
      I was just looking for rayiner's take on what makes an unfair law unfair.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - rayiner 13y ago
    People throw around the word "unjust" too easily. There are plenty of laws I don't like (e.g. drug laws, sentencing generally), but I believe that in a democratic society people have the right to regulate individual behavior that has collateral effects. There are only a few laws I consider "unjust" either because society has very little real interest in regulating the behavior (e.g. bans on homosexual marriage), or because the results are wholly out of proportion with any legitimate interest (e.g. three strikes laws). I dislike most housing-related regulations, but it's very difficult for me to find "injustice" in the commercial regulations voters (who are mostly property owners) impose upon themselves.
    - noobiemcfoob 13y ago
      The issue with taking the stance that the voters imposed it on themselves is that voters, particularly of a specific city, are a group that is constantly cycling in and out members. I'm only recently of voting age; any regulation that was imposed more than 8 years ago, I had zero say in, let alone the knowledge and experience to have an informed opinion about it. Beyond that, its hard to say the margins by which such a law passed. If a law passes by 51%, is it still difficult to find 'injustice' (This coming from a person in a state that passed a state constitutional ban against gay marriage by a similar margin)
mathattack 13y ago
This isn't black and white. Many landlords struggle because their tenants are paying below market rents. This is a particular problem in San Francisco, but also in other cities like NY. On the one hand, you can say, "Joe taxi driver can barely afford rent, what's wrong with him leasing out his room when he's out of town?" Then look at it from the landlord's point of view. They say, "I can't get a free market rent, because the law says that I can't evict Joe Taxi Driver. So I have to settle for less money, then he goes and rents the room out without paying me a dime." Then look at Jane NewToTown. Jane says, "I would like to pay market rate for Joe's place. I can't, but if I want to stay for a few nights I can pay the renter who gets below market rates, rather than the landlord." AirBnB isn't the cause of the problem - it exists because there is a problem that it being arbed.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I think what we are saying, essentially, is that Joe Taxi Driver is leveraging the fact that he cannot be evicted to engage in aggressive rent-seeking behavior.
  - toufka 13y ago
    That would be a reasonable conclusion if time wasn't a factor. Imagine if Joe Taxi Driver moved in when he could afford rent, and then the price of housing tripled in two years. Now, Joe's new roommates expect to pay 3x what Joe's old roommates paid. Additionally, Joe has far less housing security - he cannot move, even if he get's a 50% increase on his taxi receipts, he still can no longer afford market-rate rent. It's unclear if Joe is now 'leveraging the fact that he cannot be evicted' because the cost of eviction is so high, and his 'aggressive rent-seeking behavior' is now merely an effort to make a little extra money on the moral hazard that has been dropped into his lap.
- malandrew 13y ago
  I call bs here, if landlords are struggling then they should get out of the business of being a landlord in a market with regulations that don't support their business model. There are more than enough people willing to buy a unit to move into it themselves. I'm 100% anti rent control myself, but to claim landlords are struggling is disingenuous. There is no rule out there that says that landlords have a right to their business model on their terms. I'm aware of several units in this city where the landlord grew up in a unit their parents purchased way back in the day, who then moved out of the city to the suburbs. They now profit handsomely because they self select for tenants that are likely to move out of the city or outgrow a unit.

rayiner 13y ago

That's a kind of ad-hominem attack on a law. Just because the hotel lobbyists might favor it doesn't mean it's not a good or fair law. The fact of the matter is that these sorts of provisions are supported not just by hotel lobbyists,[1] but property owners generally. Short-term renters reduce property value in neighborhoods, and property owners love measures to ban such rentals. [1] Invoking the specter of "hotel lobbyists" is intensely amusing to me. If hotels had such good lobbyists, cities wouldn't have almost universally exorbitant (over 14% in NYC) hospitality taxes, which quite negatively affect the hotel industry.

sillysaurus3 13y ago
What's an example of any law that's currently in place which you feel is unjust or unfair?
- noobiemcfoob 13y ago
  I'm uncertain if you are addressing me or rayiner, but marriage equality (or more so bans against) is an easy one without even straining. Do you mean to imply that laws are inherently just and fair?
  - sillysaurus3 13y ago
    I was just looking for rayiner's take on what makes an unfair law unfair.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 13y ago
  People throw around the word "unjust" too easily. There are plenty of laws I don't like (e.g. drug laws, sentencing generally), but I believe that in a democratic society people have the right to regulate individual behavior that has collateral effects. There are only a few laws I consider "unjust" either because society has very little real interest in regulating the behavior (e.g. bans on homosexual marriage), or because the results are wholly out of proportion with any legitimate interest (e.g. three strikes laws). I dislike most housing-related regulations, but it's very difficult for me to find "injustice" in the commercial regulations voters (who are mostly property owners) impose upon themselves.
  - noobiemcfoob 13y ago
    The issue with taking the stance that the voters imposed it on themselves is that voters, particularly of a specific city, are a group that is constantly cycling in and out members. I'm only recently of voting age; any regulation that was imposed more than 8 years ago, I had zero say in, let alone the knowledge and experience to have an informed opinion about it. Beyond that, its hard to say the margins by which such a law passed. If a law passes by 51%, is it still difficult to find 'injustice' (This coming from a person in a state that passed a state constitutional ban against gay marriage by a similar margin)

mathattack 13y ago

This isn't black and white. Many landlords struggle because their tenants are paying below market rents. This is a particular problem in San Francisco, but also in other cities like NY. On the one hand, you can say, "Joe taxi driver can barely afford rent, what's wrong with him leasing out his room when he's out of town?" Then look at it from the landlord's point of view. They say, "I can't get a free market rent, because the law says that I can't evict Joe Taxi Driver. So I have to settle for less money, then he goes and rents the room out without paying me a dime." Then look at Jane NewToTown. Jane says, "I would like to pay market rate for Joe's place. I can't, but if I want to stay for a few nights I can pay the renter who gets below market rates, rather than the landlord." AirBnB isn't the cause of the problem - it exists because there is a problem that it being arbed.

sliverstorm 13y ago
I think what we are saying, essentially, is that Joe Taxi Driver is leveraging the fact that he cannot be evicted to engage in aggressive rent-seeking behavior.
- toufka 13y ago
  That would be a reasonable conclusion if time wasn't a factor. Imagine if Joe Taxi Driver moved in when he could afford rent, and then the price of housing tripled in two years. Now, Joe's new roommates expect to pay 3x what Joe's old roommates paid. Additionally, Joe has far less housing security - he cannot move, even if he get's a 50% increase on his taxi receipts, he still can no longer afford market-rate rent. It's unclear if Joe is now 'leveraging the fact that he cannot be evicted' because the cost of eviction is so high, and his 'aggressive rent-seeking behavior' is now merely an effort to make a little extra money on the moral hazard that has been dropped into his lap.
malandrew 13y ago
I call bs here, if landlords are struggling then they should get out of the business of being a landlord in a market with regulations that don't support their business model. There are more than enough people willing to buy a unit to move into it themselves. I'm 100% anti rent control myself, but to claim landlords are struggling is disingenuous. There is no rule out there that says that landlords have a right to their business model on their terms. I'm aware of several units in this city where the landlord grew up in a unit their parents purchased way back in the day, who then moved out of the city to the suburbs. They now profit handsomely because they self select for tenants that are likely to move out of the city or outgrow a unit.