Sharing may not be the best name but there is clearly value to be gained by using valuable assets like cars, housing and spare time more intensively. What's fundamentally wrong with this?
Well, this is the angle that airbnb likes to push, that people are renting out a "spare" bedroom that wouldn't otherwise be used, or are renting out their place while they're on vacation. In other words, there is no displacement, there is just efficiency.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out that way - housing that was used for permanent residence is now getting converted into airbnb rentals. People are now acquiring properties in order to have a "spare room" - ands those "spare rooms" would absolutely be occupied by a long term resident if they were not being used as short term hotel-like rentals. For instance, people are now using the anticipated income from a spare kid's bedroom to outbid a person who would have otherwise used that bedroom for, well, a kid. Kids cost a bundle, and they don't pay anything like a well heeled tourists for the right to occupy their bedrooms. In a place like SF, where everything goes to a bidding war, a family with the extra costs of kids has very little hope going up against an investor who plans to convert the house into a hotel.
BTW, I absolutely agree that some of this really is efficiency (spare rooms, people on vacation). But at this point, I think it's pretty clear that airbnb is driving displacement and conversion on a large scale.
It is immensely reasonable (yes, in my opinion) for cities to pass laws that ensure a proper mix of housing, including housing for families with children. These laws are not obsolete just because someone wrote a Rails app where you can type in an address and click a "Create Hotel" button.
I overwhelmingly agree that SF needs to build more, but I don't think this basic reality will change. SF's population of children has plummeted in my lifetime, from about 22% to below 14% now. Airbnb is hardly the only factor, but I believe it is making the problem worse.
Look, no one has a right to live in a particular city. You can buy or you can rent, and if you can pay then you can stay.
To your complaint about people factoring in future rental income - what about people betting on future price increases like during the housing bubble? Should people not do math?
As to your last stat, maybe kids just grow up and then more adults moved in to work in tech - would that explain the pct drop or are you blaming airbnb?
Sure, no-one has a right to a particular city. But cities do get to set zoning laws, and do get to say things like "no, you can't turn houses into quasi-hotels". If you don't believe there should be zoning laws or restrictions on use, make the case for that. Otherwise, this is a pragmatic question of how we best shape cities to balance individual liberties against people's reasonable expectations of quality of life.
Housing has the issue that someone who is there for a few days at most does not really have any incentive to care about their neighbors or the property they are staying in. Most people would not buy an apartment next to a hotel room.
My co-worker rents a condo on VRBO and the condo board is perfectly fine with the short-term renters as they have far more trouble with long-term renters.
The real issue is how much real estate isn't available for long term renters because short term rentals are so much more profitable and easy. It's killer on vacancy rates and drives up rents for everyone.
I'm sure the condo board is fine: short term renters are probably less demanding in terms of services provided by the condo board. I suspect the buildings fellow residents might differ: they're the ones that suffer quality of life issues from (eg) party rentals.
For reference, co-op boards tend to outright ban short term rentals.
It's not "spare" housing. People who buy apartments for use with AirBnB are reducing the housing stock available to people who want long term rents or to buy to live.
Bad analogy. If the grocery store runs out of celery it doesn't have anywhere near the impact on your life as not being able to find a home reasonably close to other important things.
Perfectly good analogy. Not living in the exact place you want does not cause unreasonable suffering ("nearest starbucks is 2 miles away, oh horrors" ?), so it should be subject to market forces.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working out that way - housing that was used for permanent residence is now getting converted into airbnb rentals. People are now acquiring properties in order to have a "spare room" - ands those "spare rooms" would absolutely be occupied by a long term resident if they were not being used as short term hotel-like rentals. For instance, people are now using the anticipated income from a spare kid's bedroom to outbid a person who would have otherwise used that bedroom for, well, a kid. Kids cost a bundle, and they don't pay anything like a well heeled tourists for the right to occupy their bedrooms. In a place like SF, where everything goes to a bidding war, a family with the extra costs of kids has very little hope going up against an investor who plans to convert the house into a hotel.
BTW, I absolutely agree that some of this really is efficiency (spare rooms, people on vacation). But at this point, I think it's pretty clear that airbnb is driving displacement and conversion on a large scale.
It is immensely reasonable (yes, in my opinion) for cities to pass laws that ensure a proper mix of housing, including housing for families with children. These laws are not obsolete just because someone wrote a Rails app where you can type in an address and click a "Create Hotel" button.
I overwhelmingly agree that SF needs to build more, but I don't think this basic reality will change. SF's population of children has plummeted in my lifetime, from about 22% to below 14% now. Airbnb is hardly the only factor, but I believe it is making the problem worse.