3 ms·

I just came back from SF having used Airbnb (studio apartment under the house) for the duration of my stay. I looked at hotels and hostels, however the night ra

I just came back from SF having used Airbnb (studio apartment under the house) for the duration of my stay. I looked at hotels and hostels, however the night rate of a hotel was simply too expensive and I hate staying in hostels. Airbnb was a cheaper alternative that meant I could actually afford to stay in SF, while there I used the trams, bought coffees in local coffee shops (not Starbucks), ate in restaurants and visited the Exploratorium, all of which I assume SF gets a slice of through taxes. My hosts own their property and as a result I think they should be able to rent it out on a short term basis if they want to, they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though. I think the law should be looked at if for those who own their property. Villas in Europe are rented out legally all the time and it drives lots of tourism and provides accommodation at much better rates than hotels etc. If the host rents, then their land lord should be able to evict them if they sublet and they're not allowed to - they agreed to the contract and they should stick to it.

driverdan 13y ago
> they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though SF and CA already charge plenty of taxes. There's no need for any extra.
kansface 13y ago
Airbnb residents are often a nightmare for other tenants in the same building- they often function as de facto customer support and are forced to put up with the extra noise. Beyond the legality, this business model is plagued by extremes.
- malandrew 13y ago
  What's your basis for claiming this is an often occurrence? I have no doubt that there are nightmare airbnb hosts, but often is hardly warranted. I've lived as a roommate in a unit where the master tenant rents out on airbnb and in the dozens of interactions, I can think of at most one case where the person what an inconvenience to me and I can think of no cases where the person was an inconvenience to our neighbors.
geebee 13y ago
It sounds like you had a good experience, and this would be a good argument to make to people if you're hoping to get the law changed. The resistance to this tends to come from people who are concerned about the long term housing stock. It is most profitable to build a studio in your garage and rent it out on airbnb, it is somewhat less profitable to rent it out to a long term tenant, and it's far, far less profitable to build an extra bedroom for a growing family, cause small children don't pay rent and cost you a bundle in child care costs. Allowing this sort of use would mean that in a bidding war (which is how all property in SF is sold), the people who plan to airbnb part of their house out will hold a huge advantage over someone who is looking for expansion potential for kids. So my take on it is, maybe we should zone some of the SF for single family use. Which, here in SF, we've actually already done. That's the argument I'd make against allowing unlimited short term rentals in every single corner of SF. I would like to trade my right to engage in short term rentals in exchange for legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either, because I'd much rather have friends for my kids nearby than a neighborhood of short term vacationers. We can disagree and resolve it at the ballot box, and I understand the problems with 50%+1 legislation. Some people won't like the outcome. So I guess I'd ask if you feel this sort of zoning in some parts of San Francisco (single family housing, no short term rentals) is so unjust that it is an unreasonable law that should (or must) be disregarded?

driverdan 13y ago

> they should have to pay a (small) percentage tax of the rate they charge though SF and CA already charge plenty of taxes. There's no need for any extra.

kansface 13y ago

Airbnb residents are often a nightmare for other tenants in the same building- they often function as de facto customer support and are forced to put up with the extra noise. Beyond the legality, this business model is plagued by extremes.

malandrew 13y ago
What's your basis for claiming this is an often occurrence? I have no doubt that there are nightmare airbnb hosts, but often is hardly warranted. I've lived as a roommate in a unit where the master tenant rents out on airbnb and in the dozens of interactions, I can think of at most one case where the person what an inconvenience to me and I can think of no cases where the person was an inconvenience to our neighbors.

geebee 13y ago

It sounds like you had a good experience, and this would be a good argument to make to people if you're hoping to get the law changed. The resistance to this tends to come from people who are concerned about the long term housing stock. It is most profitable to build a studio in your garage and rent it out on airbnb, it is somewhat less profitable to rent it out to a long term tenant, and it's far, far less profitable to build an extra bedroom for a growing family, cause small children don't pay rent and cost you a bundle in child care costs. Allowing this sort of use would mean that in a bidding war (which is how all property in SF is sold), the people who plan to airbnb part of their house out will hold a huge advantage over someone who is looking for expansion potential for kids. So my take on it is, maybe we should zone some of the SF for single family use. Which, here in SF, we've actually already done. That's the argument I'd make against allowing unlimited short term rentals in every single corner of SF. I would like to trade my right to engage in short term rentals in exchange for legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either, because I'd much rather have friends for my kids nearby than a neighborhood of short term vacationers. We can disagree and resolve it at the ballot box, and I understand the problems with 50%+1 legislation. Some people won't like the outcome. So I guess I'd ask if you feel this sort of zoning in some parts of San Francisco (single family housing, no short term rentals) is so unjust that it is an unreasonable law that should (or must) be disregarded?