4 ms·

> Community consensus, which as luck would have it, is fairly easy to come to on a local geographic level. Unfortunately that's not really sustainable. For ins

> Community consensus, which as luck would have it, is fairly easy to come to on a local geographic level. Unfortunately that's not really sustainable. For instance let's say the community agreed that you can turn your home into a noisy 24/7 tool and die shop. Now 5 years past and half of the neighborhood has different home owners in it (quick turnaround for moving half a community but I've seen crazier things). Now the entire community wants them GONE. Do we say it's okay one year then a few years later go "oh sorry but you can't do your business here anymore"? Moving or even closing up could cost the business owner a substantial amount of money not to mention the loss of customers now not necessarily knowing they moved, etc. Point being while I don't know where the line is for regulating and not regulating something I also don't think community consensus is a silver bullet. Really not sure about a solution here.

DanBC 12y ago
"Agent of change" is a useful concept here. The community originally says it's okay for 24/7 noise. Some of them move out and other people move in. They know when they move in that there is a 24/7 noise shop there, and they don't have much right to demand because they are the thing that's changed.
- sedachv 12y ago
  I wish people understood that concept when it comes to shooting clubs and hunting.
- 205guy 12y ago
  Exactly, and who is the agent of change when your neighborhood fills up with transient tenants? Why, it's AirBnB of course. Ergo, AirBnB should be regulated. I've said it before: cities that care about their current residents should enact 2 limits: tourist zones where year-round full-unit, full-building rentals are allowed, taxed and regulated like hotels (yes, you run a business, you pay commercial property tax, in addition to sales and nightly tax). And then in the remaining residential zones, limit homestays to 40 or 60 days, regardless of whether they are owner occupied or not, with AirBnB collecting taxes and fees for the city and reporting all nightly counts to the city. There could also be complete homestay exclusion zones, but that can also be handled by condo/neighborhood association rules. The regulation can be tailored to local desires and needs: number of days, requiring permits or just allowing anyone to operate, and requiring owner-occupancy during visitor stays or not. Note that nothing prevents regular residences at resident-occupied tax rates in the "commercial" zone, just that buyers in that zone know they can convert if they want, but so can their neighbors.
  - geebee 12y ago
    I agree completely. We have different zoning laws, so why is San Francisco applying a single short term rental law across the entire city? As I said in an earlier post, I would like to trade my right to run a hotel out of my house in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either. However, I certainly don't see why the preferences of people who live in largely SFH zones in the outer mission or outer sunset should govern north beach or the inner mission. That's up to them.
learnstats2 12y ago
You're not sure about a solution, but I am: community consensus and governance. If there needs to be a noisy shop there, people will want it to be there. If there doesn't need to be one there, people will want it to move to an industrial zoned area. That's good for society.

DanBC 12y ago

"Agent of change" is a useful concept here. The community originally says it's okay for 24/7 noise. Some of them move out and other people move in. They know when they move in that there is a 24/7 noise shop there, and they don't have much right to demand because they are the thing that's changed.

sedachv 12y ago
I wish people understood that concept when it comes to shooting clubs and hunting.
205guy 12y ago
Exactly, and who is the agent of change when your neighborhood fills up with transient tenants? Why, it's AirBnB of course. Ergo, AirBnB should be regulated. I've said it before: cities that care about their current residents should enact 2 limits: tourist zones where year-round full-unit, full-building rentals are allowed, taxed and regulated like hotels (yes, you run a business, you pay commercial property tax, in addition to sales and nightly tax). And then in the remaining residential zones, limit homestays to 40 or 60 days, regardless of whether they are owner occupied or not, with AirBnB collecting taxes and fees for the city and reporting all nightly counts to the city. There could also be complete homestay exclusion zones, but that can also be handled by condo/neighborhood association rules. The regulation can be tailored to local desires and needs: number of days, requiring permits or just allowing anyone to operate, and requiring owner-occupancy during visitor stays or not. Note that nothing prevents regular residences at resident-occupied tax rates in the "commercial" zone, just that buyers in that zone know they can convert if they want, but so can their neighbors.
- geebee 12y ago
  I agree completely. We have different zoning laws, so why is San Francisco applying a single short term rental law across the entire city? As I said in an earlier post, I would like to trade my right to run a hotel out of my house in exchange for a legally enforced expectation that my neighbors won't do this either. However, I certainly don't see why the preferences of people who live in largely SFH zones in the outer mission or outer sunset should govern north beach or the inner mission. That's up to them.

learnstats2 12y ago

You're not sure about a solution, but I am: community consensus and governance. If there needs to be a noisy shop there, people will want it to be there. If there doesn't need to be one there, people will want it to move to an industrial zoned area. That's good for society.