5 ms·

I guess the question I have is, should someone be able to do a housing swap? Say, let someone trade use their home in SF for a week in exchange for use of the

I guess the question I have is, should someone be able to do a housing swap? Say, let someone trade use their home in SF for a week in exchange for use of the other party's home in NY? Does that need to be regulated?

dougmccune 12y ago
I agree that there's a huge grey area in terms of defining what crosses the line. I should be able to let my buddy stay at my place if I'm not here. I also don't have a problem if places that legitimately would have just been empty are rented to tourists (ie I'm traveling for 3 weeks and otherwise would just leave my place empty). The thing that's not OK is when someone realizes they can rent out their place as a permanent hotel to tourists and get more income than renting it out to residents. So I think a first step is to stop the ability to convert a rental unit serving residents into a hotel for tourists. Then the more nuanced stuff beyond that will take a lot more debate.
- btgeekboy 12y ago
  Perhaps the solution is that the host must have the property as their primary residence. This implies they spend over half of the year at that property.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    That's nice and simple. It also covers my case: after my mom died, I went and spent a summer back home. It was great to be able to rent my place out here to cover the cost of renting a place there. And I think there's a good incentive there. I was very choosy about who I let stay, because I was letting them into my own home. I didn't want anybody stealing my books or breaking my things. For a unit set up as a virtual hotel room, I expect people would be less careful about guests.
- alwaysdoit 12y ago
  So isn't David Chiu's proposal, which requires the resident to live there at least 75% of the time, enough?
applecore 12y ago
This regulation is meant to stop people from buying cheap apartments and turning them into makeshift hotels.

dougmccune 12y ago

I agree that there's a huge grey area in terms of defining what crosses the line. I should be able to let my buddy stay at my place if I'm not here. I also don't have a problem if places that legitimately would have just been empty are rented to tourists (ie I'm traveling for 3 weeks and otherwise would just leave my place empty). The thing that's not OK is when someone realizes they can rent out their place as a permanent hotel to tourists and get more income than renting it out to residents. So I think a first step is to stop the ability to convert a rental unit serving residents into a hotel for tourists. Then the more nuanced stuff beyond that will take a lot more debate.

btgeekboy 12y ago
Perhaps the solution is that the host must have the property as their primary residence. This implies they spend over half of the year at that property.
- wpietri 12y ago
  That's nice and simple. It also covers my case: after my mom died, I went and spent a summer back home. It was great to be able to rent my place out here to cover the cost of renting a place there. And I think there's a good incentive there. I was very choosy about who I let stay, because I was letting them into my own home. I didn't want anybody stealing my books or breaking my things. For a unit set up as a virtual hotel room, I expect people would be less careful about guests.
alwaysdoit 12y ago
So isn't David Chiu's proposal, which requires the resident to live there at least 75% of the time, enough?

applecore 12y ago

This regulation is meant to stop people from buying cheap apartments and turning them into makeshift hotels.