5 ms·

This is a naive view of how quiet-enjoyment-type laws are enforced. It can take weeks to months to bring action against neighbors for violating noise ordinance

by zorpner 11y ago

This is a naive view of how quiet-enjoyment-type laws are enforced. It can take weeks to months to bring action against neighbors for violating noise ordinances (if they even exist). When I moved into my current SF apartment, I verified with the management that short-term rentals were forbidden in the lease terms, and that they'd be willing to take action against tenants who violated that clause. I have no desire to live in a building occupied by people who have no incentive to live in harmony.

baddox 11y ago
> It can take weeks to months to bring action against neighbors for violating noise ordinances (if they even exist). Then that applies equally to short-term and long-term occupants. Of course, the point of the rules and penalties is to disincentivize the behavior, not just to have recourse after the behavior occurs. Assuming there is a reliable process of enforcing the penalties, and the penalties are set appropriately, they should function to sufficiently disincentivize the behavior.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
This seems similar to people who admire an idyllic view of other people's trees from their house, and then complain when the actual owner of that other property takes down the trees that were providing that view. "Not neighborly" is not a crime; you can't even sensibly define what it would mean, other than "don't do anything I don't like". Which leads directly into NIMBY. There are long-term residents who hold similar views about not particularly caring to know or interact with their neighbors, and that's not against the law either. (Also, does "quiet-enjoyment-type laws" sound like dystopian doublespeak to anyone else, or is it just me?) For the record, though, there's nothing wrong with the owner of an apartment building prohibiting the renters or owners of the apartments from subletting them via AirBnB or any other means. It's perfectly fine for them to say "don't rent out your place or we'll kick you out". So if they want to construct an apartment building that caters to long-term residents who object to living near short-term residents, they can. And if they want to rent out their apartments on a short-term basis, or let their tenants do so, to the possible detriment of their ability to attract long-term residents, they can do that too.
- zorpner 11y ago
  "Not neighborly" is not a crime; you can't even sensibly define what it would mean... Yes, the nature of living in a society with humans is that you sometimes have to take situations on a case-by-case basis, and cannot have a single set of rules that will guide you to correct action in all circumstances. (Also, does "quiet-enjoyment-type laws" sound like dystopian doublespeak to anyone else, or is it just me?) "Quiet enjoyment" is the technical term. Between the intellectually dishonest rhetorical device of calling something I said "dystopian" and your absurd assertion that one could use a noise ordinance against short-term tenants, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing in good faith here.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    > Yes, the nature of living in a society with humans is that you sometimes have to take situations on a case-by-case basis, and cannot have a single set of rules that will guide you to correct action in all circumstances. That's a very old and ongoing argument, between having a concrete set of potentially inflexible laws (which are particularly dangerous when they restrict the human capacity for understanding and forgiveness), and having the arbitrary and changing moral sensibilities of humans ("I'll know it when I see it"). Both have their own set of bugs. I don't think it's reasonable to universally say you cannot have a single set of rules that works everywhere, nor is it reasonable to always defer to collective moral sensibility (which often gets the wrong answer as well). I do, however, think it's reasonable with either approach to limit outrage and sensibilities to what actually affects people, rather than proxies for that, or worse yet things that neighbors have no business controlling. > "Quiet enjoyment" is the technical term. I never said it wasn't, and I didn't intend it as a rhetorical device; sorry if it came across as such. I meant it as a genuine question; it seems like an odd term, compared to for instance "noise ordinance" or similar.
    - zorpner 11y ago
      I meant it as a genuine question; it seems like an odd term, compared to for instance "noise ordinance" or similar. Gotcha, I interpreted that as you saying I was using doublespeak, rather than that the term itself was doublespeak-ish. Apologies for the misinterpretation.

by zorpner 11y ago

baddox 11y ago

> It can take weeks to months to bring action against neighbors for violating noise ordinances (if they even exist). Then that applies equally to short-term and long-term occupants. Of course, the point of the rules and penalties is to disincentivize the behavior, not just to have recourse after the behavior occurs. Assuming there is a reliable process of enforcing the penalties, and the penalties are set appropriately, they should function to sufficiently disincentivize the behavior.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

This seems similar to people who admire an idyllic view of other people's trees from their house, and then complain when the actual owner of that other property takes down the trees that were providing that view. "Not neighborly" is not a crime; you can't even sensibly define what it would mean, other than "don't do anything I don't like". Which leads directly into NIMBY. There are long-term residents who hold similar views about not particularly caring to know or interact with their neighbors, and that's not against the law either. (Also, does "quiet-enjoyment-type laws" sound like dystopian doublespeak to anyone else, or is it just me?) For the record, though, there's nothing wrong with the owner of an apartment building prohibiting the renters or owners of the apartments from subletting them via AirBnB or any other means. It's perfectly fine for them to say "don't rent out your place or we'll kick you out". So if they want to construct an apartment building that caters to long-term residents who object to living near short-term residents, they can. And if they want to rent out their apartments on a short-term basis, or let their tenants do so, to the possible detriment of their ability to attract long-term residents, they can do that too.

zorpner 11y ago
"Not neighborly" is not a crime; you can't even sensibly define what it would mean... Yes, the nature of living in a society with humans is that you sometimes have to take situations on a case-by-case basis, and cannot have a single set of rules that will guide you to correct action in all circumstances. (Also, does "quiet-enjoyment-type laws" sound like dystopian doublespeak to anyone else, or is it just me?) "Quiet enjoyment" is the technical term. Between the intellectually dishonest rhetorical device of calling something I said "dystopian" and your absurd assertion that one could use a noise ordinance against short-term tenants, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing in good faith here.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Yes, the nature of living in a society with humans is that you sometimes have to take situations on a case-by-case basis, and cannot have a single set of rules that will guide you to correct action in all circumstances. That's a very old and ongoing argument, between having a concrete set of potentially inflexible laws (which are particularly dangerous when they restrict the human capacity for understanding and forgiveness), and having the arbitrary and changing moral sensibilities of humans ("I'll know it when I see it"). Both have their own set of bugs. I don't think it's reasonable to universally say you cannot have a single set of rules that works everywhere, nor is it reasonable to always defer to collective moral sensibility (which often gets the wrong answer as well). I do, however, think it's reasonable with either approach to limit outrage and sensibilities to what actually affects people, rather than proxies for that, or worse yet things that neighbors have no business controlling. > "Quiet enjoyment" is the technical term. I never said it wasn't, and I didn't intend it as a rhetorical device; sorry if it came across as such. I meant it as a genuine question; it seems like an odd term, compared to for instance "noise ordinance" or similar.
  - zorpner 11y ago
    I meant it as a genuine question; it seems like an odd term, compared to for instance "noise ordinance" or similar. Gotcha, I interpreted that as you saying I was using doublespeak, rather than that the term itself was doublespeak-ish. Apologies for the misinterpretation.