5 ms·

SF plans 120-day annual short term rental caps

26 points by mahyarm 12y ago

bskinny129 12y ago
"amendments to streamline" oxymoron?
- oxryly1 12y ago
  Amendments can remove stuff. These amendments seem to just add things though, so... yes, oxymoron.
djyaz1200 12y ago
The party is over.
gergles 12y ago
This is actually much worse than it could be, because of this: > • Treating all short-term rental hosts equally by striking the current difference in the law between “hosted” and “un-hosted” short-term rentals. Hosted rentals SHOULD have lesser regulation and restrictions. Nobody's going to turn your spare bedroom into a meth lab with you in the apartment. Most of the negative externalities of these types of rentals come when people are able to provide 'unhosted' rentals.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  That does seem illogical. It's not some technical aspect of the law, is it, like that if you are in the house for X days of the month then any rental you have in the place that month is considered "hosted"? I'm not familiar with the wording of the law, but it could be out of date in that way or something.
- jawns 12y ago
  I think you're quite right that unhosted rentals are more problematic. Every short-term rental horror story I've heard has involved unhosted rentals. However, from an enforcement standpoint, I can see how difficult it could potentially be to have to make distinctions in each and every case. If a host is there to let you in the door and then leaves, is that a "hosted" rental? Does the host need to be in the apartment 100% of the time you're there to count as a "hosted" rental? What if he steps out for an hour? Does the host need to employ some sort of time tracking system as evidence of his presence? What if a host and a guest dispute the amount of time the host is present?
- dpifke 12y ago
  The complaint about the current law is that the city has no way to know whether or not the hosts are present. Along with not requiring hosts to provide any sort license number when offering a place for rent, it basically makes the current regulations completely unenforceable.
- pbreit 12y ago
  Yeah, that one surprised me. Hosted rentals are obviously much, much less risky. Perhaps the enforcement was going to be a problem? Not a great excuse.
slykat 12y ago
I think it'd be more productive if the city was more focused on improving regulation to build more housing in the city for actual residents rather than trying to stem the loss of units to permanent Airbnb'ing. It seems like every policy maker and lobbying group seems to be ignoring the biggest elephant in the room which is this city needs dramatically MORE HOUSING than it is building (and the infrastructure that goes along with it). Build more housing please.
- mmanfrin 12y ago
  I can count off the top of my head at least 8 different housing projects/towers being built. It's going up, and the city is doing everything it can (whist being actively undermined by NIMBY groups). Also addressing the rampant issue of people taking up rental units with quasi-illegal short term rentals is perfectly fine.
  - Govannon 12y ago
    I think it's more an issue of proportion and scale than number of towers. If there are 8 new projects, but the population looks to grow enough to fill 10 new projects, then there still need to be more. http://www.spur.org/blog/2015-02-20/top-analysts-predict-another-year-growth-sf-economy http://www.spur.org/blog/2015-02-20/top-analysts-predict-ano...
  - slykat 12y ago
    It's definitely going up, but not at any rate close to actual population growth: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/04/14/sad_chart_confirms_sf_isnt_adding_new_housing_fast_enough.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/04/14/sad_chart_confirms_... There is additional issue that even if units are going up, a significant percentage is being purchased by foreign investors who are not occupying the units. Maybe I expect too much, but I don't believe the city is doing everything it can. I do understand that this is probably largely due to entrenched interests who are prioritizing preserving property values over the future health, economic growth, & infrastructure of the city. Surprisingly Techcrunch covered a lot of the policy issues quite comprehensively: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ Most of the policy problems they mentioned are not going away anytime soon.
twblalock 12y ago
Once again, instead of responsibly approaching the housing problem by passing measures to incentivize building more supply, the SF government has taken the easy way out by placing more restrictions on what can be done with existing units. This is a convenient regulation for politicians because it appeases certain people and attacks an easy scapegoat, but it will have a minimal effect on the quality and quantity of housing available, and on the price of rent.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Where do you propose "more supply" be built? Pretty much every inch of SF is already occupied by something[0]. I suppose we could start landfilling part of the bay a la Boston. [0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738299,-122.4049461,7687m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738...
  - Hobotron1 12y ago
    There's a third, woefully underutilized dimension I can think of.
    - swang 12y ago
      Yep. A lot of NIMBYism preventing that.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Which would typically require demolition of existing structures. Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed.
      - Hobotron1 12y ago
        > Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. There are those that do who would gladly fork over a good chunk of change for their lots. > It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed. Yeah, lets inconvenience 99% of people just so those few won't be.
hardcandy 12y ago
If enforced properly this should force investor owned units out of the short term rental market which should help lower annual rental prices somewhat. Big IF.

26 points by mahyarm 12y ago

bskinny129 12y ago

"amendments to streamline" oxymoron?

oxryly1 12y ago
Amendments can remove stuff. These amendments seem to just add things though, so... yes, oxymoron.

djyaz1200 12y ago

The party is over.

gergles 12y ago

This is actually much worse than it could be, because of this: > • Treating all short-term rental hosts equally by striking the current difference in the law between “hosted” and “un-hosted” short-term rentals. Hosted rentals SHOULD have lesser regulation and restrictions. Nobody's going to turn your spare bedroom into a meth lab with you in the apartment. Most of the negative externalities of these types of rentals come when people are able to provide 'unhosted' rentals.

devindotcom 12y ago
That does seem illogical. It's not some technical aspect of the law, is it, like that if you are in the house for X days of the month then any rental you have in the place that month is considered "hosted"? I'm not familiar with the wording of the law, but it could be out of date in that way or something.
jawns 12y ago
I think you're quite right that unhosted rentals are more problematic. Every short-term rental horror story I've heard has involved unhosted rentals. However, from an enforcement standpoint, I can see how difficult it could potentially be to have to make distinctions in each and every case. If a host is there to let you in the door and then leaves, is that a "hosted" rental? Does the host need to be in the apartment 100% of the time you're there to count as a "hosted" rental? What if he steps out for an hour? Does the host need to employ some sort of time tracking system as evidence of his presence? What if a host and a guest dispute the amount of time the host is present?
dpifke 12y ago
The complaint about the current law is that the city has no way to know whether or not the hosts are present. Along with not requiring hosts to provide any sort license number when offering a place for rent, it basically makes the current regulations completely unenforceable.
pbreit 12y ago
Yeah, that one surprised me. Hosted rentals are obviously much, much less risky. Perhaps the enforcement was going to be a problem? Not a great excuse.

slykat 12y ago

I think it'd be more productive if the city was more focused on improving regulation to build more housing in the city for actual residents rather than trying to stem the loss of units to permanent Airbnb'ing. It seems like every policy maker and lobbying group seems to be ignoring the biggest elephant in the room which is this city needs dramatically MORE HOUSING than it is building (and the infrastructure that goes along with it). Build more housing please.

mmanfrin 12y ago
I can count off the top of my head at least 8 different housing projects/towers being built. It's going up, and the city is doing everything it can (whist being actively undermined by NIMBY groups). Also addressing the rampant issue of people taking up rental units with quasi-illegal short term rentals is perfectly fine.
- Govannon 12y ago
  I think it's more an issue of proportion and scale than number of towers. If there are 8 new projects, but the population looks to grow enough to fill 10 new projects, then there still need to be more. http://www.spur.org/blog/2015-02-20/top-analysts-predict-another-year-growth-sf-economy http://www.spur.org/blog/2015-02-20/top-analysts-predict-ano...
- slykat 12y ago
  It's definitely going up, but not at any rate close to actual population growth: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/04/14/sad_chart_confirms_sf_isnt_adding_new_housing_fast_enough.php http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/04/14/sad_chart_confirms_... There is additional issue that even if units are going up, a significant percentage is being purchased by foreign investors who are not occupying the units. Maybe I expect too much, but I don't believe the city is doing everything it can. I do understand that this is probably largely due to entrenched interests who are prioritizing preserving property values over the future health, economic growth, & infrastructure of the city. Surprisingly Techcrunch covered a lot of the policy issues quite comprehensively: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ Most of the policy problems they mentioned are not going away anytime soon.

twblalock 12y ago

Once again, instead of responsibly approaching the housing problem by passing measures to incentivize building more supply, the SF government has taken the easy way out by placing more restrictions on what can be done with existing units. This is a convenient regulation for politicians because it appeases certain people and attacks an easy scapegoat, but it will have a minimal effect on the quality and quantity of housing available, and on the price of rent.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Where do you propose "more supply" be built? Pretty much every inch of SF is already occupied by something[0]. I suppose we could start landfilling part of the bay a la Boston. [0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738299,-122.4049461,7687m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7738...
- Hobotron1 12y ago
  There's a third, woefully underutilized dimension I can think of.
  - swang 12y ago
    Yep. A lot of NIMBYism preventing that.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Which would typically require demolition of existing structures. Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed.
    - Hobotron1 12y ago
      > Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. There are those that do who would gladly fork over a good chunk of change for their lots. > It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed. Yeah, lets inconvenience 99% of people just so those few won't be.

hardcandy 12y ago

If enforced properly this should force investor owned units out of the short term rental market which should help lower annual rental prices somewhat. Big IF.