[loudin]

Why can't we compromise a bit here? I don't think many people have issues with folks renting out their place for a few weeks during the year, but buying property and using it to attract vacationers to a residential area is very different. It can change the city by causing businesses to cater towards more tourists and to reduce available housing stock.

What if people could only rent out their primary residence for no more than half the year unless the property is exempt as a vacation home? Perhaps this could be a good compromise for cities to encourage Airbnb while effectively banning the practice of buying homes exclusively for Airbnbers.

[themartorana]

Curiously, I grew up in NJ, where 40% [0] or more of certain shore towns are rented out at least part of the year. We vacation there and yet it doesn't seem to negatively effect the towns. There is mix of full time residents, part time residents, and 100% rentals, and it's the way it's been for decades. Yet Ocean City, Wildwood, etc are flourishing.

Considering these towns have been so rental focused for decades before Air BnB was a thing, it feels to me like the model works well for towns that embrace it. Am I wrong?

[0] http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/new-jersey/ocean-city/

[nradov]

How would the city practically enforce such a specific limit?

[TeMPOraL]

Force AirBnB to disclose data or else they'll be banned, and its users prosecuted with extreme prejudice?

SM could have a good start here. Also, if it would somehow force AirBnB to disclose the data, it would be a good precedent and all other cities could benefit as well.

Of course it ain't gonna happen, because it's not good for AirBnB business.

[wdr1]

You'd need to force everyone to do & then the city would still have to consolidate all the data. Otherwise I could rent my home half the year on AirBnB & the other half on VRBO.

Santa Monica is also a big travel destination. I could probably rent my home out on AirBnB for the 3 summer months & cover my mortgage for the year. So arguably, it could still see a reduction in inventory.

[thaumasiotes]

> Force AirBnB to disclose data or else they'll be banned

Banned from what?

[TeMPOraL]

From doing business in the area.

[thaumasiotes]

They already don't do that, though.

[bronson]

It might still profitable to rent the house for the busy season and let it sit vacant the other half of the year. A friend who owns three VRBOs in Santa Cruz basically does that. (he's a decent guy but an opportunistic and terrible landlord)

[Broken_Hippo]

It is possible to think through the law and write it well to avoid that sort of situation. In this case, a clause stating that 1) a primary residence can only be rented out x days a year while the owner is not present, but may be rented an additional x days a year with the owner present 2) A secondary or vacation home can only be rented out x days a year with a minimum of x days between rentals, and the owners must be present at least x days out of year. 3) A non-primary or secondary home may only be leased out x days of the year, with longer x days in between. 4) A unit that would otherwise be a unit for longer habitation can only be rented out a smaller x times a year, and must be offered for long-term renting at competitive prices in between times. 5) All other residences being rented out must be registered and liscenced as a resort or a hotel and uphold the regulations of those. 6. All must register their rentings with the city and obtain the appropriate permits (simple stuff for single home owners looking to supplement income, of course).

[tempestn]

Perhaps a lower limit then. No more than 10 weeks per year maybe. Or 8.