8 ms·

> the pendulum has swung too far from "abusive regulation" to "abusive lack of regulation". Of course, this always depends on your definition of "abusive" and

• ceejayoz 12y ago
  > If it's excessive noise, then isn't that just as bad whether it's a long-term resident or a string of short-term residents? Long-term residents tend to have more of a need/interest in keeping the peace with their neighbors.
  • baddox 12y ago
    What I'm saying is that, if there are X+1 decibels coming from a property, and there is a law or community rule that X decibels is the loudest allowable noise, then why can't that rule be enforced regardless of the nature of that property's residency?
    • tedunangst 12y ago
      I would prefer to just sleep at night, instead of calling the cops every weekend and waiting for them to put the party out. Personal preference.
      • baddox 12y ago
        I don't understand. The purpose of the penalty would be to prevent the noise from happening, not simply to raise money after it already happened.
        • anigbrowl 12y ago
          How long do you think it takes to sue and/or fine someone over this sort of thing? It's not like if 3 of your neighbors vote to file a complaint about the noise your bank account gets debited $100 within the hour. Have you ever been involved in a legal dispute in rel life? Even a small claims court issue can play out over months.
          • baddox 12y ago
            I still do not understand. Your criticism applies to literally all rules and laws in any society.
            • anigbrowl 12y ago
              Resolving everything on a case-by-case basis means high transaction costs. A blanket ban on some less-than-popular activity is arguably economically inefficient, but the net cost to individuals is negligible, whereas the cost to someone negatively affected by the unpopular activity is high, and we can all (except perhaps for you) imagine being the one stuck with the problem. Say this is happening to you: you're trying to sleep but the short-term renters next door are having a loud party, and although you already asked them to stop they ignored you. You lie awake fuming about it, but planning for how you would like to get the property owner fined isn't doing anything to stop the noise right now. Furthermore, even if the property owner is fined, then it's still possible that in 6 months time he'll rent the place out to some jerks who'll do the same thing. So, the property owner may get fined again, but the jerks don't care, because they're jerks - it's oin a stolen credit card, they're leaving the country, they're high on drugs and are incapable of realizing that this will result in bad credit, whatever. Do you want to go through the same process of filing a complain and eventually having the property owner fined every time this happens, or do you just want to get with your neighbors and say 'fuck it, no more short-term rentals in our building/street' at the next HOA or neighborhood meeting?
    • kansface 12y ago
      Have you ever had to deal with a noisy neighbor? In SF, there is no recourse. Tenants can't be evicted and the police don't care. About the only thing you can do is to enter an escalating war of noise making. Short term rentals exacerbate the problem because there is no incentive for the renters or neighbors to play nicely.
      • baddox 12y ago
        Are you saying there is recourse for short-term rentals, but not for noise violations? If that's the case for some odd reason, then it needs to change.
        • kansface 12y ago
          There is no reason for short term renters or their neighbors to behave. For instance, at one AirBnB rental, my upstairs neighbor used to do jumping jacks in boots - maybe just to piss off the people below, I don't know. For that matter, renters often party late into the night on weekdays. Renters on AirBnB at least have a few options - they can contact AirBnB, they can file a chargeback, or they can eat the loss and move.
    • learc83 12y ago
      Because enforcing a thousand tiny regulations like, no higher than x decibels, no more than 10 people, and no leaving doors to common areas open is difficult. A short term tenant finds it easier to get a way with breaking these rules because he knows he will be gone tomorrow, and it is more difficult for people to associate him with a particular apartment if he's only been there for a few days. Most cities realized that length of tenancy is a good heuristic, so to make enforcement easier they developed zoning laws around it. There are real objective difference between living in a building with short term vs long term tenants, and there is no easy way to force short term tenants to behave like long term tenants.
  • _delirium 12y ago
    Yes, and there is a more established community process to get consensus on how people will get along with each other, and mediate any disputes. Many condo buildings have monthly meetings of the owners, for example. Short-term residents have no real investment in being part of a group of neighbors who they get along with long-term. The buildings where this functions best are already taking some steps to crack down on AirBnBs themselves, though, without waiting for cities to get involved. Usually the condo association contract gives them the legal tools to do so, although it varies by state & building how effective that is.
    • JoshTriplett 12y ago
      > Yes, and there is a more established community process to get consensus on how people will get along with each other, and mediate any disputes. Many condo buildings have monthly meetings of the owners, for example. Short-term residents have no real investment in being part of a group of neighbors who they get along with long-term. And speaking as a long-term resident who has no interest in local politics, like who leaves their trash bin by the edge of the road for a day after trash pickup, or whether grass is two inches too long, personally I actively avoid places with a homeowner's association.
      • _delirium 12y ago
        When I've lived in suburban areas with detached family houses, I also found the homeowners' associations somewhat useless and didn't go to any meetings. But I've found them more useful in apartment and condo buildings, where a pleasant living experience usually requires a bit more cooperation. That seems to be a common view, since attendance is a lot better at tenant/resident-association meetings in buildings, than at any suburban homeowner's association I've seen.
        • JoshTriplett 12y ago
          Yeah, I could easily believe that; when you share a wall, your neighbors' behavior matters a lot more than when you have an air gap and good soundproofing. (One of many reasons I prefer the suburbs.)
• tptacek 12y ago
  Neighbors complain because outer doors are propped open, short-term tenants are loud (or throw parties), and common facilities (like lobbies) are trashed. These things in turn make true renters aware of the fact that the common space in the building have been opened up to strangers, which justifiably makes them feel less safe. It's not complicated. These aren't people patrolling every apartment in the building (some of these buildings are huge). They're tenants who are noticing the actual externalities of Airbnb tenants.
  • ad_hominem 12y ago
    And why should the government get involved? Find an apartment complex where the owner agrees to not do short-term leases, and expect to pay a slightly higher rent for the stipulation. > It's not complicated. Everything is complicated when the government gets involved and starts inventing regulations.
    • tptacek 12y ago
      "Zoning" is not a new regulation that cities just invented.
    • jabits 12y ago
      The government is our proxy for things like this. That's why we have one.
  • baddox 12y ago
    I'm saying that these externalities seem like they can be dealt with directly, by rules requiring doors to be closed, rules about the treatment of common areas, noise limits, etc. without any reference to the duration of residents' stays.
    • tptacek 12y ago
      Those rules already exist. In a medium-sized apartment building with common areas, leases assuredly spell these things out. The problem is that rules in leases aren't effectively binding on short-term tenants, because it takes longer to enforce the rules than those short-term tenants will be staying anyways. Also, you can reasonably assume that boilerplate leases for apartment buildings forbid directly these kinds of short-term rentals. Most boilerplate leases require individual approval by the landlord for any sublessors.
• untog 12y ago
  Why would a short term resident care about the outward appearance of the property? Why, really, would they care that a neighbour thinks their music is too loud? They've moving out in three days anyway. Close quarters living like we have in major cities is a very delicate dance that involves building a relationship with your neighbours. Introducing someone not committed to that can absolutely cause huge problems.
  • JoshTriplett 12y ago
    > Why would a short term resident care about the outward appearance of the property? Why, really, would they care that a neighbour thinks their music is too loud? They've moving out in three days anyway. Because they could be fined or otherwise penalized for violating noise ordinances, which apply just as well to short-term and long-term residents.
    • untog 12y ago
      So the German tourist that comes to Midtown Manhattan is going to be tracked down all the way back in Europe for violating a noise ordinance, is he? Come on.
      • JoshTriplett 12y ago
        If you can't track down the resident, fine the property owner as the ultimately responsible party.
        • untog 12y ago
          Right - the noise has already happened, though. To choose a more permanent example - property damage. If the tourist damages the property, you make the property owner pay for repairs. OK. Maybe AirBnB can help the property owner track down the tourist to get the money for repairs, maybe not. But the point is that the damage still happened in the first place - a longer term tenant that faces their neighbours every day would be far less likely to have done the damage in the first place.