[sp332]

But your neighbors might not want you to let out your place to an endless parade of strangers. This is a case where the government needs to listen to the people, and determine if the majority want more freedom or a nicer neighborhood.

[nostromo]

> But your neighbors might not want you to let out your place to an endless parade of strangers.

This is the argument NIMBYs have been using against regular old renters since the beginning of time.

[toomuchtodo]

Once you own property, you too can be a NIMBY! That's how local property rights work.

[cstejerean]

Then your neighbors should put that in their HOA rules. The city is getting involved to protect hotels not "neighbors".

[paulmd]

Absolutely not. There are significant negative externalities associated with transient populations.

For starters: Occupational safety (branches falling down and crushing you on a tire swing), fire safety, bedbugs, noise/loud parties, litter, criminal occupancy, secondary vice (drug dens/prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc). The problem of a bunch of sailors coming into port has been recognized since antiquity. Skeezy/short term motels have a reputation for a reason, and are regulated for even better ones. You yourself may be a perfectly upstanding citizen who just couchsurfs for a weekend to check out a cool area, but others are not.

It's unreasonable to expect neighbors to file daily lawsuits against their neighbors to keep a modicum of peace. It's a known problem and it's perfectly reasonable to preempt it by either requiring a formal lease with a minimum term of a month or more, or requiring more identification/scrutiny of the clients and some formal standards of the rentiers.

Analogously, it's perfectly fine for banks to scrutinize large cash transactions. Some of them are legit, some of them are tied to crime. But you need to look and be sure because it's high-risk activity. If you don't want that level of scrutiny, send a check/transfer/CC payment and your reputation will speak for itself.

[yummyfajitas]

...secondary vice (drug dens/solicitation of prostitution/craigslist orgies/etc).

Since we are regulating what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, shall we also bring up the possibility of homosexuals engage in sodomy?

If that's somehow off limits to regulate, what distinguishes it from the private bedroom activities you bring up?

[brainfire]

Your parent post is talking about the (already illegal) negative effects that follow from the presence of a transient population.

[rahimnathwani]

Orgies and drug dens can have an impact outside the bedroom, and outside the apartment.

Search 'airbnb xxx fest evicted' for details.

[toomuchtodo]

One occurs as a financial transaction.

[abannin]

I'm surprised that this argument gets so much traction without any supporting data. It just plays on fear.

First, nothing you listed is an externality but rather direct results of poor behavior. An externality would be something like 'decreases property values of neighboring properties' or 'increased rents due to lower supply'.

Second, what data do you have that proves these scenarios are more likely in an AirBnB than a long term tenant? You're only supporting evidence is inference; if people are going to behave poorly then it makes sense for them to rent an AirBnB away from home. But there's an easy counter argument: pressure from neighbors will keep these incidents to a minimum. Sure, there will always be hosts are not sensitive to neighborhood pressure, but that same logic can be applied to long term tenants who have bedbugs, throw parties with loud music, litter, engage in criminal activity, etc. Simply put, all of negative scenarios you outline can occur with long term or short term tenants, and there is no evidence that these behaviors are more common from short term tenants.

Third, comparing all AirBnB's to skeezy motels is like saying all restaurants are roach-infested mold-filled 50-point scoring health hazards. This is a classic straw man argument. What about Marriot or Hilton? Embassy Suites or DoubleTree? Do they fulfill the reputation of "skeezy/short term motels"? This is an argument for better inspections and code enforcement, not prohibiting AirBnB.

No one expects neighbors to file daily lawsuits, but neighbors can notify the police if there is a noise violation, etc. Once again, there is no difference here between long term and short term rentals. AirBnB requires more identification than any hotel I've stayed at, so this argument actually supports AirBnB as a platform.

Lastly, your bank analogy is frightfully off base. First, a bank's intrinsic motivation for monitoring large transactions is fraud and not criminal activity. Second, banks are compelled by law to monitor and report specific types of activities that are likely to be criminal activity, but this is defined by organizations like the FBI, not the banks themselves. Third, you still have yet to prove, beyond casual inference, that AirBnB promotes criminal activity any more than long term tenancy.

[paulmd]

Decreased property values near hotels, student ghettos, and other nuisance areas are very commonly depressed, and often have elevated police dispatch rates. It's hardly an uncommon phenomenon.

Not all restaurants are roach-infested mold-filled hazards - but we have to treat them all like they potentially are, in the sense that we need to register them and inspect them to prove that they aren't hazards. Marriott and Hilton hotels get inspected all the time and they pass with flying colors because they do all the things they're supposed to do - unlike unregistered fly-by-night flophouses working under the radar.

You've obviously never gotten bedbugs from a neighboring unit or hotel. Trust me, they suck like crazy. You do not want to go bundle everything you own into trash bags, move out for a weekend while you wash everything you own, and have the house fumigated (heated to a crisp). It sucks.

Fraud/money laundering is a form of criminal activity, and (just like hotels) banks are compelled to report on specific types of activities that are likely to be criminal. Hotels don't define this; legislatures do, just as they define (or delegate) what they consider to be suspicious financial activity. The Hilton is not deciding that the guy paying in cash every night with a dozen visitors every night or the guy bringing in a bunch of drain cleaner every day is a suspicious individual, they let the FBI investigate that just like financial crime.

Sorry to break it to you but the FBI is on to your no-tell-motel dealing scheme. They're not stupid.

[abannin]

Ah, yes! Decreased property values are an externality! However, judging based on police dispatch or crime rates seems to rely a bit more on correlation than causation. It's pretty easy to argue that hotels are typically built in areas with increased police dispatch rates, not hotels causing the dispatches. Unless you have data that shows that the hotel itself has a higher rate than surrounding areas? Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of short term rentals (typically in the form of hotels or resorts) that are tied to increased property values.

Once again, your arguments support better inspections and code enforcement for health issues not banning short term rentals.

I'm not sure why you assume my history with bedbugs. You are correct that I have never had to deal with a bedbug infestation, but I've helped friends who have. I have lived through multiple other infestation of other insects and rodents because of my neighbors. I've also had neighbors who felt the need to party all night every weekend, and have lived across the street from meth houses and drug dens multiple times. However, all of these experiences were dealing with long term tenants, not short term rentals. I am not discounting the inconvenience of these situations, just questioning why we conclude that they are unique to short term rentals.

It seems that you're confusing the impacts of property values with short term rentals. Long term rentals can occur in very wealthy neighborhoods as well as economically depressed areas. I'm no fan of slum lords, but a slum lord can have long term or short term tenants! Furthermore, they tend to set up shop in economically depressed areas if for no other reason than the overhead is too great in nicer neighborhoods.

Regarding criminal activity, I fail to see how 1) this is isolated to or increased activity from short term vs long term rentals and 2) it assumes that the landlord/host does not care about the activity. While same may not care, it seems quite presumptuous to conclude that all AirBnB hosts will encourage criminal activity. But this presents a really interesting question: why hasn't the city of San Francisco taken steps to train hosts on potential threats if this is a concern?

[tjl]

I know that near the major universities in my region properly values are far lower because they're often rented to groups of students who are rowdy so their neighbours property values are lower since people are reluctant to buy a house that's for sale unless you're willing to either put up with it, or rent it out yourself.

The amount of off-campus housing needs increased dramatically through the 2000s as the universities expanded enrolment so many areas that weren't being rented now were. Many of the long time homeowners who lived in those areas long before student housing came there have been up in arms.

[abannin]

Wonderful point. Student housing is a great example of long term rentals with tenants that don't always respect the property or neighbors.

[tjl]

They're not exactly long term, though. In my city, they're turned over every 4 months or possibly 8 months. The biggest university has 4 month terms and their co-op programs alternate 4 months on 4 months off.

[areyousure]

Due to intentional local policies, San Francisco is full of transient populations, litter, criminal occupancy, drug dens, and prostitution all directly on the street.

[mdorazio]

That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. There are a baotload of regulations on hotels for very good reasons, as other commenters have pointed out. If you turn your home into a de facto hotel then those same regulations should apply to you as well. To me, Airbnb is a case of many people wanting to have their cake and eat it too - they want the rental income, but not the downsides of adhering to short-term rental regulations.

Think if you started a bakery and went through the laborious process of getting a business license, getting your kitchen health inspected and certified, etc. and then a week later someone next door just started selling bread out of their home to undercut you on price, regulations be damned. I would be rightly pissed off and expect the local government to shut down the home operation.

[ab5tract]

"Airbnb is a case of many people wanting to have their cake and eat it too" -- in fact, considering that the whole company was founded by two bros who couldn't afford their own rent, this is a perfect summation of what Airbnb does. And now that it exists, rents are even more unaffordable than before.

Commenters who want to ignore externalities are Randians with no actual sense of human society. All they see are rules that are in their own personal way, naturally some tyranny or another. Democracy itself is a blight in their eyes, and a business plan should always trump community concerns.

[mc32]

That's a good point. However, I _think_ they genuinely have good intentions for renters, except they are doing it in the most knee-jerk constituency visible way, for whatever reason.

[matthewowen]

They don't need to. The city already made laws limiting short term rentals. We voted on them in a citywide referendum. They were passed. This change is merely enforcement of rules that already exist.

[gshulegaard]

Who cares what your neighbors want? Seriously.

In the Seventeenth Century many American colonists were fleeing England due to religious persecution because their religion didn't happen to be the the dominant/majority held belief [1].

The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy. The specific topic of tyranny of the majority and ways to combat it were discussed in the Federalist papers and, in my belief, is ultimately the reason the Founding Fathers structured American government the way it did (federation, checks and balances, republic, etc.).

I am not trying to argue that AirBnB is good, but it's not bad because your neighbors don't like it.

[1] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

[colechristensen]

You're conflating religious persecution with your neighbors running a hotel. There's a difference. Zoning laws have existed for a long time, and unless you're pretty far towards the libertarian extreme, nobody really has a problem with them existing (they could be better, but that's a subtle point not a blunt hammer like you're trying to use)

[gshulegaard]

What I was objecting to was the idea that the government should dictate what you do with your own "property" based on what the majority of your neighbors want.

Zoning laws and city planning is not exactly the same as what is being implied by the comment I specifically responded to.

I also was not intending to conflate religious persecution, only provide an example of where the opinion of the majority breaks down. In reference to the Federalist Papers, I meant to imply that it was my belief that these mob rule tendencies was why the Constitution specifically doesn't structure the U.S. as a Direct Democracy. And discussions on how to combat these tendencies via education and related points are particularly insightful.

There is a fine line to walk with government regulation protecting greater social good (pollution laws, etc.) and the government restricting property rights as proxy for the desires of the many. If you buy a condo, I have not been convinced that you should not be able to rent it out short or long term. But I am definitely opposed to the idea that you be restricted from doing so because your neighbors don't want you to.

[pbreit]

There's a reason for commercial and residential zoning. There's a reason your landlord and HOA do not permit short term rentals.

[sp332]

The idea that government should govern based on what the majority want is a fallacy.

That's why I said "this is a case". Maybe it's a problem for a certain set of people and maybe it isn't. You have to listen to them.

[gshulegaard]

This is the fallacy I am objecting to.

If the majority of the people want to abolish the First Amendment in order to silence hate speech, the government absolutely should not listen the them.

Tyranny of the majority and mob rule are discussed from various angles in the Federalist Papers and I believe were considered carefully when structuring the American government (in order to prevent them).

[sp332]

Last I checked, the ability to rent out your house wasn't a human right or a constitutional one. Are you against every kind of property zoning?

[gshulegaard]

Arguably, the ability to rent your house is a constitutional one:

* https://fee.org/articles/private-property-and-government-und...

There seems to be a common misconception about zoning laws. Zoning laws fall under city planning where placement of certain types of buildings in organized locations leads to a more efficient city. These laws typically address traffic flow, utilities, etc.

So to forward the AirBnB context, the city zones an area as residential, a developer builds residences, and a private owner (again AirBnB context) purchases the property. From there I would contest that the city should have limited (if any) ability to limit or dictate how the now private owner choses to "use and dispose" of their personal property. Renting of the property does not violate the residential zoning...this would be as opposed to the owner tearing down their home to build an office sky scraper.

But if a private owner buys a house, they should be able to choose how to use that house. And again, this is off topic from the original thing I objected to: whether or not your neighbors should be able to dictate through government how you can/should use/dispose of your personal property.

[ap3]

Do my neighbors own my place, pay my mortgage or my bills?

[mc32]

True enough. They might also only want single family homes to be owner or family occupied only. I think there can be compromises people come to.

[natrius]

Using laws to bias housing stock towards owner-occupancy is explicit economic segregation. Owning a home requires wealth that many families don't have, and they should have an equal right to all neighborhoods.

Segregation is the default in American housing policy to the point that most people treat segregation laws as normal, justifiable things. Every time we make a decision about homes, we should consider the impact it has on different kinds of people.

[mc32]

Yes, that was my implicit point. We can go to extremes, but we don't have to. We can be reasonable about things. (I am, by the way, such a renter).