5 ms·

As a SF resident, I'm opposed to any regulation at all. I'm a long term renter (same house, 7 years) and my lease prevents subletting. That's exactly where the

by geuis 13y ago

As a SF resident, I'm opposed to any regulation at all. I'm a long term renter (same house, 7 years) and my lease prevents subletting. That's exactly where the responsibility and regulation should lie, at the feet of the home owner. If I own a piece of property or have a lease that allows it, then I should have the free choice to do with that property what I want in regards to something like Airbnb. In my case, the owner of my house doesn't want that. Other owners do. A friend just purchased a condo for a lot of money. He should be free to do with his condo what he wants. How far does this line of thinking extend? What about small startups that work out of someone's house or apartment? They're doing commercial activity in an unzoned area, so that should be banned too. How about coffee shops? Coffee shops are generally licensed to sell coffee and non-cooked (on premises) goods. Want to sell sandwiches made on site? That's a different (expensive) license. Beer and wine? Same thing. So coffee shops aren't licensed to be places of business for customers to perform commercial activity. We should ban engineers working from cafes too. I've always liked the petition (http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html) Bastiat sent to the French Parliament proposing that they block out the sun to benefit French candle makers. Its in the same vein as a Modest Proposal from Swift about the Irish poor. We're seeing government protectionism of new competing services against established and entrenched businesses, i.e. taxi medallions vs Uber/Lyft, hotels vs Airbnb, city-built fiber vs Comcast/Time Warner. This is dangerous. It limits competition and competition is almost always good for customers. We need to stop this from happening in SF.

wdewind 13y ago
While I generally favor a less-regulation approach, you're missing the core issue here: short-term rentals have a negative effect on neighborhoods because they change the incentives of the people living the house from those of a neighbor to those of a visitor. This is precisely what zoning regulations are designed to protect. > How far does this line of thinking extend? What about small startups that work out of someone's house or apartment? They're doing commercial activity in an unzoned area, so that should be banned too. The difference is that no one around the startup is going to complain because they aren't impacting their neighborhood negatively. Short term rentals are decisions you make for your neighborhood without their consent. The feedback mechanism that would replace regulation on Airbnb is unfortunately limited to only the guests who stay, which are not all of the stakeholders affected by any means.
- geuis 13y ago
  I appreciate your point of view, but this is just supposition. As far as I know, there have been no actual studies done related to the effect of independent rentals using the Airbnb model on neighborhoods. My own opinion is that property owners have the ability to do what they will with that property up to the limits of established laws. This means that with no existing laws to prevent action, those actions are allowable. Based on that opinion, and unless some studies are done that factually demonstrate negative impacts on neighborhoods, no pre-emptive laws should be passed restricting this activity.
  - wdewind 13y ago
    Edit: not sure why you're being downvoted, I upvoted fwiw. Yeah I agree, I'd like to see this studied more in depth, because I also don't find the hotel industry to be unbiased in the discussion. It is not supposition because it happened to me: someone in my building was Airbnb-ing their apartment and the building had significant damage to public walk ways, parties thrown on roof til 4am on week nights etc. If you look through my comment history you'll see I'm, admittedly, completely biased because of that. Again, as you said, I'd love to see a study. I think it would be totally reasonable to also have a public place where I could see all units in my building that are currently being short-term leased, as well as a place to complain. I don't think all out illegality is the only response here, but Airbnb (and VBRO etc.) are not handling this properly yet.
- baddox 13y ago
  > short-term rentals have a negative effect on neighborhoods because they change the incentives of the people living the house from those of a neighbor to those of a visitor. So what? People aren't friendly enough to their neighbors? Is this really worth regulating? If there's a specific concern, like tenants not maintaining the property or being too noisy, why not just require tenants to take care of the property and have a noise policy?
  - wdewind 13y ago
    As I said below, I had an extremely negative experience having someone in my building renting out their apartment on Airbnb. Of course, sample size of 1.
breischl 13y ago
Coffee shops need a different license to make food to ensure that they have a safe, hygienic food prep area. Hotels are subject to health regulations as well. Hotels are also supposed to collect guest taxes that I'm guessing many (most? all?) AirBnB hosts weren't collecting. ie, they were not playing by the same rules as everyone else, which is anti-competitive. The neighbors should get a say in whether you're running a hotel out of your house/condo, because there are externalities involved. For example, if the condo next door to you hosts hundreds of people per year they're more likely to get bedbugs, which can require fumigating the entire building. I'm sure we can come up with some more if you try. Bottom line, certainly some regulations exist for protectionist reasons, but you're wrong in assuming that protectionism is the only reason for regulation. AirBnB and others should be subject to a reasonable level of regulation. It's unfortunate, but that's the cost of living in close quarters with lots of other people.
wpietri 13y ago
I have some issues with this ballot proposition, but you take it too far. The "property owners should be free to do as they please" thing is a good slogan, but it ignores negative externalities. E.g., I shouldn't be able to open up a paper mill or a hog farm in my condo, because the effects of that extend beyond the bounds of my property. That's why we have zoning, for example. We zone an area residential because many people don't want to live in a commercial zone. Saying, "You can't run a hotel in this neighborhood" is something we already do, so it's not crazy to say, "You also can't use AirBnB to run a hotel-like-thing in this neighborhood."
- arebop 13y ago
  Segregation by use into residential/commercial/industrial zones is a characteristic of suburban rather than urban planning. An alternative to zoning by use is to zone by intensity or pattern of activity. You can consider externalities such as traffic generation or noise or chemical pollution explicitly rather than assuming that e.g., every manufacturing process generates noxious fumes. The more urban neighborhoods of SF including Pac Heights, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, SOMA, the Mission, the Castro, and Civic Center all include hotels right next to or above or below residential and other, complementary, uses [https://www.google.com/maps/search/san+francisco+hotel/@37.7577,-122.4376,13z/data=!3m1!4b1 https://www.google.com/maps/search/san+francisco+hotel/@37.7...].
  - wpietri 13y ago
    I agree what I said was more simple than the full reality, but even San Francisco has a lot of space that is zoned purely one or the other: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1569 http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1569 I also agree that some people like living next to hotels, but some don't. And in the case of apartment buildings, it's not so much "next to a hotel" as "in a partial hotel". So I think my broad point, that zoning regulations aren't some sort of pointlessly Orwellian government regulation, and are in fact rooted in reasonable preferences of residents, still stands.
midas007 13y ago
Yes. \o/ Anything less is control-freak, incumbent cronyism with a mafia protection fee.

by geuis 13y ago

wdewind 13y ago

While I generally favor a less-regulation approach, you're missing the core issue here: short-term rentals have a negative effect on neighborhoods because they change the incentives of the people living the house from those of a neighbor to those of a visitor. This is precisely what zoning regulations are designed to protect. > How far does this line of thinking extend? What about small startups that work out of someone's house or apartment? They're doing commercial activity in an unzoned area, so that should be banned too. The difference is that no one around the startup is going to complain because they aren't impacting their neighborhood negatively. Short term rentals are decisions you make for your neighborhood without their consent. The feedback mechanism that would replace regulation on Airbnb is unfortunately limited to only the guests who stay, which are not all of the stakeholders affected by any means.

geuis 13y ago
I appreciate your point of view, but this is just supposition. As far as I know, there have been no actual studies done related to the effect of independent rentals using the Airbnb model on neighborhoods. My own opinion is that property owners have the ability to do what they will with that property up to the limits of established laws. This means that with no existing laws to prevent action, those actions are allowable. Based on that opinion, and unless some studies are done that factually demonstrate negative impacts on neighborhoods, no pre-emptive laws should be passed restricting this activity.
- wdewind 13y ago
  Edit: not sure why you're being downvoted, I upvoted fwiw. Yeah I agree, I'd like to see this studied more in depth, because I also don't find the hotel industry to be unbiased in the discussion. It is not supposition because it happened to me: someone in my building was Airbnb-ing their apartment and the building had significant damage to public walk ways, parties thrown on roof til 4am on week nights etc. If you look through my comment history you'll see I'm, admittedly, completely biased because of that. Again, as you said, I'd love to see a study. I think it would be totally reasonable to also have a public place where I could see all units in my building that are currently being short-term leased, as well as a place to complain. I don't think all out illegality is the only response here, but Airbnb (and VBRO etc.) are not handling this properly yet.
baddox 13y ago
> short-term rentals have a negative effect on neighborhoods because they change the incentives of the people living the house from those of a neighbor to those of a visitor. So what? People aren't friendly enough to their neighbors? Is this really worth regulating? If there's a specific concern, like tenants not maintaining the property or being too noisy, why not just require tenants to take care of the property and have a noise policy?
- wdewind 13y ago
  As I said below, I had an extremely negative experience having someone in my building renting out their apartment on Airbnb. Of course, sample size of 1.

breischl 13y ago

Coffee shops need a different license to make food to ensure that they have a safe, hygienic food prep area. Hotels are subject to health regulations as well. Hotels are also supposed to collect guest taxes that I'm guessing many (most? all?) AirBnB hosts weren't collecting. ie, they were not playing by the same rules as everyone else, which is anti-competitive. The neighbors should get a say in whether you're running a hotel out of your house/condo, because there are externalities involved. For example, if the condo next door to you hosts hundreds of people per year they're more likely to get bedbugs, which can require fumigating the entire building. I'm sure we can come up with some more if you try. Bottom line, certainly some regulations exist for protectionist reasons, but you're wrong in assuming that protectionism is the only reason for regulation. AirBnB and others should be subject to a reasonable level of regulation. It's unfortunate, but that's the cost of living in close quarters with lots of other people.

wpietri 13y ago

I have some issues with this ballot proposition, but you take it too far. The "property owners should be free to do as they please" thing is a good slogan, but it ignores negative externalities. E.g., I shouldn't be able to open up a paper mill or a hog farm in my condo, because the effects of that extend beyond the bounds of my property. That's why we have zoning, for example. We zone an area residential because many people don't want to live in a commercial zone. Saying, "You can't run a hotel in this neighborhood" is something we already do, so it's not crazy to say, "You also can't use AirBnB to run a hotel-like-thing in this neighborhood."

arebop 13y ago
Segregation by use into residential/commercial/industrial zones is a characteristic of suburban rather than urban planning. An alternative to zoning by use is to zone by intensity or pattern of activity. You can consider externalities such as traffic generation or noise or chemical pollution explicitly rather than assuming that e.g., every manufacturing process generates noxious fumes. The more urban neighborhoods of SF including Pac Heights, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, SOMA, the Mission, the Castro, and Civic Center all include hotels right next to or above or below residential and other, complementary, uses [https://www.google.com/maps/search/san+francisco+hotel/@37.7577,-122.4376,13z/data=!3m1!4b1 https://www.google.com/maps/search/san+francisco+hotel/@37.7...].
- wpietri 13y ago
  I agree what I said was more simple than the full reality, but even San Francisco has a lot of space that is zoned purely one or the other: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1569 http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1569 I also agree that some people like living next to hotels, but some don't. And in the case of apartment buildings, it's not so much "next to a hotel" as "in a partial hotel". So I think my broad point, that zoning regulations aren't some sort of pointlessly Orwellian government regulation, and are in fact rooted in reasonable preferences of residents, still stands.

midas007 13y ago

Yes. \o/ Anything less is control-freak, incumbent cronyism with a mafia protection fee.