Comical to suggest that AirBnB "ruined communities" or "destroyed the dream of home ownership" as if decades of federal, state, and local government policy had not already guaranteed those outcomes.
Airbnb has in fact ruined communities and destroyed the dream of home ownership for an entire class of people: those who would already be buying at the limits of their budgets to stay where they were brought up.
This happened even in areas where holiday home ownership and rental was common as a business.
The failure of government to grapple with the negative effects of Airbnb is a separate thing. Airbnb are, in fact, in control of their own morality.
As a home owner that was only able to afford to buy a house because we were able to rent out the spare rooms on AirBnb I find fault in your logic.
I think you'll find that zoning/planning permission is the real bad guy here. That and a failure to understand Adam Smith and implement the ideas of Henry George.
> because we were able to rent out the spare rooms on AirBnb
Unless you were the very first person in the entire area to think to do so, then the existence of that very market for you to rent spare rooms on is actually driving up the prices of properties so you have to do so.
It's also driving up the prices of long term rental, because landlords make more money in the short-term rental market. The prices of long-term rental also affect the floor price of permanent ownership.
I have friends and family. From time to time I would like to host them when they visit so we can drink alcohol and stay up late.
Consequently it is always likely that one might want at least one more room than is needed by the family. It additionally provides buffer overflow should the pitter-patter of tiny drains on one's resources appear.
In such circumstances renting out a spare room on a longish licence should necessarily reduce rents since now there is an option which is likely to be cheaper. Renting out a spare room for other people visiting ones city should similarly have had a depressive impact on the price of hotels or an improvement in their offering.
Given the inconvenience and reduced amenity one gains from living in a house under multiple occupation there is further no specific reason why it should be the case that this does not more than offset the cash remuneration meaning there is no in principle reason why the capital cost of such a property should increase.
Yours is not a common case. That was the original dream of AirBNB and the appeal of staying with a family in some far away place made it cool.
The vast majority of AirBNBs are the entire house or some separate guest cottage. Many are owned and managed by larger companies. Or by people who own multiple houses.
The individual home owner renting out a room so they can cover their mortgage has become more of an outlier.
I agree with your statements but believe the solution to be the abolition, or substantial reduction, of planning controls and the introduction of a Georgist Land Tax.
Airbnb demonstrates that there was clearly substantial demand for "house style" hotel rooms but hotels chose not to provide them. In most hotels where a room is $400 a suite with a space to work, watch tv and cook, might be $10,000. The hotel market optimised for the business man travelling alone to conferences and paid a price for it. Even my favourite hotel on earth does not provide an "ordinary menu" for the nights where you just want to curl up with your loved one and watch a film - it's Michelin star dining or bust.
In most hotels the only amenity that a hotel offers that is "better" than the home experience is a swimming pool and daily housekeeping.
Who, but the richest amongst us, has their bed linen changed _every day_?
If hotels had been built as apartments with no zoning restrictions arbitrarily placed upon them there would have been an option for the hotels to adapt by offering their rooms up on a long lease.
> As a home owner that was only able to afford to buy a house because we were able to rent out the spare rooms on AirBnb I find fault in your logic.
Then you're a landlord who has purchased more of a scarce resource than they require (a house larger than you need) who has then turned around and rented access to the extra you have to people who can't afford a home of their own, and in so doing have driven the cost of homeowner-ship just slightly higher, which was the reason you couldn't afford it in the first place. Repeat that a few thousand times and that's a huge contributing factor to why housing is in such a dire state here.
You haven't solved anything. You just went from being an exploited person to being an exploiter instead, taking advantage of people you should have solidarity with and inflicting the harm the system was inflicting on you, onto them instead. The system will continue feasting on people who can't manage the same as you did, and you now posses wealth you did not earn.
Homes on the market aren't infinitely customizable. It seems perfectly likely that GP would have been happy to buy a home with exactly the amount of space they needed, but such a home was not available at a price they could pay. (Maybe they settled for a slightly less-nice neighborhood, or a slightly less-nice house, that just happened to provide an extra room or two.)
Even if that wasn't the case, I don't see a problem with buying slightly larger than is necessary, because (for example) perhaps they're planning to have a couple kids in the next few years, but will rent out the extra space until then. Moving is transactionally expensive, and expecting someone to move every few years as their space needs change is unreasonable.
Regardless, you seem a bit overly judgmental about this entire situation, and about someone you don't know at all.
You need to really distinguish between rent seeking landowners, and value add landowners.
Landowners that have made improvements to the land and seek financial compensation for those improvements, in this case in the form of providing a service, is NOT rent seeking behavior.
That is NOT exploitation.
This is even basic economics from an extremely leftist POV, where those that have added labor value, that is improvements to the land, in this case providing a service and perhaps building a unit, managing them, etc. should be compensated for their labor.
> You need to really distinguish between rent seeking landowners, and value add landowners.
No, I don't. Rent-seeking is derided behavior by basically everyone who isn't rent-seeking.
If you buy property, improve it, and sell it, there's your profit for providing that service. No ethical lapse whatsoever, unless you used that godawful gray laminate that every flipper uses. Then I'm mad at you still but that's a different reason.
If you own a thing that people need, and you gate access to it behind a paywall while maintaining ownership, and extract value from those people so they may use it but retain full ownership and control of it, that's rent-seeking and it sucks. You're the economic version of wind drag.
Yes, that includes the 98 year old lady who rents out a room to fill the gaps left by social security to the nice young man who's going to college in the area. Still value extraction. That young man is losing the value of his labor because he has to live somewhere and she has space he can live in. That's unethical.
Sorry, what's your position here - that any renting of a property is an "economic rent" and thus immoral? That makes little sense to me. I am a renter and glad to be so because I'm not confident I want to live in my current home for the 5-10 years it takes for purchasing it to be worthwhile. The landlord is providing me a service, turning a big, illiquid asset into something that can be accessed with only a 1-year time commitment. This is economically productive (allows me to live somewhere I otherwise wouldn't) and is hence not an "economic rent".
The classic example of an economic rent is a feudal lord putting a chain across a river and charging a toll. This is economically unproductive because it's just putting a price on something that was free (and, you have to assume for the example, non-rivalrous). This is why the sibling comment points out that the rent-seekers in the housing market are more like the people seeking to constrain supply via zoning and regulation.
> Rent-seeking is derided behavior by basically everyone who isn't rent-seeking.
Rent-seeking is something specific. If we can't get that right we're not going to get far into the discussion. Not all rents are the same.
Hotels rent rooms. But they are not the same as rent seeking.
If you're not creating new wealth/value add, and instead exploit rents by mere virtue of owning, then it is rent-seeking. If you're adding value, like providing a service or other additions, then no it's not rent seeking. The 98 year old lady? Probably rent seeking. The couple doing AirBnB? Probably not.
Why?
AirBnBs, like hotels, tend to provide a genuine service that adds value. The listings are in a competitive market, where people need to improve the living spaces in order for them to get rented out. This doesn't take into account the various hospitality businesses that have emerged in various rural communities because of AirBnB. It's an entire industry.
That is Hotels/Hospitality businesses are NOT rent seeking just because they rent out rooms or provide services on land they own.
Who is Rent-Seeking?
The people preventing new housing/infrastructure from being built are the ones rent-seeking. They artificially manipulate market conditions by restricting supply, driving up land value, and thereby generate unearned income. Income that isn't from productive improvements on land but from mere ownership of land. That unearned income on land is rent-seeking behavior.
As far as I can remember AirBnB didn't cause the 2008 financial disaster that really sealed the fate of homeownership in America for the next decade for a lot of Americans.
AirBnB has provided an avenue to generate income for small business owners in rural communities. Urban areas are struggling because they aren't building more.
BUILD MORE. How difficult is it to understand that?
> Airbnb has in fact ruined communities and destroyed the dream of home ownership for an entire class of people: those who would already be buying at the limits of their budgets to stay where they were brought up.
The thing that's "ruined communities and destroyed the dream of home ownership" is the incapacity of the community, "where they were brought up", to actually change and accommodate increasing demands.
In reality these individuals from these communities are using Left rhetoric to advocate an extremely conservative position. That is for the community to remain as is, in the exact way such people were "brought up", such that no progress, no change, no additional value is added to the communities.
What ends up happening because of this confused policy is that the individuals in these communities both lose out on their hometown, the community ends up changing, and it becomes impossibly expensive for everyone in the community. IE the worst of all options.
Instead. Build more. Build vertically. Build better infrastructure. Provide for local residents an opportunity to "buy-in".
This kind of cloaked conservatism, masquerading itself using leftist rhetoric ends up being confused from a policy POV.
There are rural/tourist-dependent communities that had an adequate supply of housing when the only visitor accomodation was licensed as a hotel/motel/inn/B&B/hostel. They didn't need a lot of extra, but some slack to accomodate tourist season workers, and occasional new arrivals.
Then AirBnB came along and converted not just the slack, but some residential property that would otherwise have been available for long term lease, into much more profitable short term rentals.
Income at licensed residential stays sometimes drops; short term and long term housing options either vanish or are reduced; problems begin to occur that were not present before.
None of this is in any way dependent on the failures caused by zoning, permitting and housing policy.
This story has been repeated at tourist locations across the world.
AirBnB was fundamentally a message to anyone with residential property: you can make more money with it as a short term rental than via any other use. This is why in many locations we've seen new construction of residential property intended solely for short term rentals. Nobody wanted to build that stuff when it was only going to be LTR; AirBnB changed the game.
You and GP are talking past each other a bit, because they're speaking to the general case, whilst you're narrowing it to tourist-dependent areas. I grew up in a tourist region, and it's been ruined (from the point of view of those of us who are from there, and might have wanted to stick around) exactly as you say.
The complicating factor (which they miss) for a tourist region is that if your "product" is (in part) Small Town Charm, or Rural Character, then you can't build, baby, build without destroying the economic underpinning of the entire community. I wish my hometown had allowed for more hotels (like, decades ago - they were horribly regulator-captured for ages), and had the wisdom to restrict STR before it became such a thing.
For anywhere with a non-tourism based economy, however, I think they are correct: increasing supply is the only possible solution.
It only occurs to me upon writing this that areas without any existing tourist infrastructure are becoming tourist-dependent on the basis of STR, which might be the worst of both worlds. Those places need to allow hotels and (actual) B&Bs, before they ruin their communities through STR-tourist dependence.
Thanks for the unnecessary correction, when it's pretty clear that my comment you are replying to includes the words "even in areas where holiday home ownership and rental was common as a business".
I don't know why it did not happen before.
All I know is that the situation in coastal resort towns in Cornwall, Devon, and elsewhere in the UK changed utterly when Airbnb became a thing.
I could guess that barrier to entry was always an issue before then; the relative complexity and process involved in listing a property with e.g. Hoseasons, who were the dominant player in the 80s and 90s, and who inspected properties and had greater requirements.
But either way, Airbnb did unambiguously change things. Ask people who lived in Cornish towns whether they're even able to rent a room or a flat.
I mean, usually if thing popular, make more of thing until everyone can have it? I guess we could go with your solution of deliberately killing demand with bizarre mechanisms so only a few people can enjoy a holiday instead of pointing the blame where it demands: locals fighting tooth and nail to not build more.
Nimbys are basically hukou advocates in disguise. After all, it's the only solution if you don't primarily place the blame on lack of construction.
There are literal physical limits on this in many coastal villages and towns -- for example pick almost anywhere on the south west coast of the UK. Not only is the area on which houses can be built restrictive due to geography (and often geology), the transport infrastructure does not scale. New property building both has not caught up with, and probably cannot catch up with, short term demand.
As it happens, a collapse seems likely, because local sentiment is turning against them so fast and because of general economic weakness; the number of "thriving holiday let" properties that are on the market now suggests that Airbnb's own accelerating rental costs problem is going to cause a bit of a bust.
But that bust will not benefit most of the people in the areas affected where the price of a small house is twenty to thirty times the average salary of would-be-first-time-buyers. Those people are leaving, so there will instead be a ghost town. And the sheer number of residents who are temporary has destroyed the potential for long-term stable infrastructure businesses for residents.
> Nimbys are basically hukou advocates in disguise.
It's nothing to do with nimbyism, is it? Nimbys are property owners. The problem only affects people who do not have back yards. They can no longer afford the houses at the prices at which they will be built and the rates at which they can be.
Please answer the solution to people not being able to afford back yards. Price is a clearing indicator on supply and demand: you can either crush demand or boost supply. If nimbys block supply increases, you either have to pick people to kick out or forbid other people from moving in.
Where do you think the AirBNBs came from? Some people decided to move out, and the people that moved in decided that others would get better use experiencing the property part-time as reflected in market prices. Would you ban them from making this choice? Would you screen every buyer not based on their own assessed price but on ever so shifting "intent"? Would you make the intent they declare at the start binding?
EDIT: I'll bet you $100 to your charity of choice that physical constraints aren't binding in the case you're thinking of (this could be shown by, despite a lax / encouraging planning environment, no one building anything).
There are many factors, and Abnb can be one of them, but it’s not the only read. Zoning laws, economic landscape of the town, etc all play into to the lack of affordable housing. I would posit NIMBYism and zoning are likely the biggest ones.
AirBnB rentals are not making it criminal to build supply, local zoning regulations that benefit incumbents at the expense of everyone else are what make it criminal to build supply.
It's a defect at the intersection of capitalism, property ownership, and democracy.
Who is building skyscrapers in a cozy tourist town? Do you really think zoning laws are the only thing standing between tiny towns and a bustling metropolis?
If there is strong demand for housing, you might see bungalows turn into town homes or townhomes turn into mixed use 3 story flats... Which tend to be much more economically productive for the local gov anyways because the cost of infrastructure & services per person drops.
> Airbnb has in fact ruined communities and destroyed the dream of home ownership for an entire class of people
That is fair, but also misses the point. The issue with AirBnB is not that they are evil company and must be regulated. It's that they operate in a system where housing is an investment vehicle due to artificially constrained supply and tax system that is riddled with well intentioned and widely abused property ownership cuts. At worst they have accelerated the issue rather than caused it.
> Airbnb are, in fact, in control of their own morality.
Not entirely, they are a publicly listed company and will get sued if they do anything that will hurt the stock price.
Speaking of, at some point even middle class families could afford to live in a hotel year long. Are these days coming back ? What happened for that to become uneconomical for a while ? (Is it a symptom of the middle class getting much smaller ?)
Oh please. NIMBYs ruined home ownership. Airbnb certainly hasn't had zero contribution to higher home prices, but abolishing short-term rentals hasn't fixed affordability issues anywhere it's been done.
As an aside, I own a home and now merely dream that renting should be as cheap as owning. Having equity in something that needs constant repair, loses heat on all sides, and has a bunch of fucking grass around it, is only equivalent to a certain amount of cash.
I suspect the real reason owning is cheap is not that it's inherently better, but because everything is cheaper when you have lots of money.
When I read stuff like this, I'm left wondering if I'm the only person who actually lives in a place that has been infested with Airbnb. On paper, my neighborhood is the Hacker News dreamland. Nobody has a yard. There is train service. Many people don't have cars. There is no mandatory parking allowance. There is no zoning restriction against multifamily housing. Virtually every unit is at least attached. Multi-use is fine. Plenty of buildings contain both housing and businesses. There isn't a lot of traffic. It's walkable. The only major restriction is you can't build higher than five stories. And we've been in a construction boom for nearly a decade.
But much of that boom has been tearing down multifamily apartment complexes and replacing them with luxury townhouses and condos instead. Almost nobody is actually moving into those places. They're 90% being purchased by investors, mostly out of state investors, to be used as Airbnbs. There is a significant categorical difference between investment property today and investment property before Airbnb. Before Airbnb, you rented via long-term leases, or you bought hotels and apartments in really shitty neighborhoods to use as weekly or even daily rentals for homeless people with jobs. Now you can buy as little as a single unit and the infrastructure to rent it out daily as a hotel room to much wealthier travelers exists without you needing to do anything extra.
With predictable results. Even in neighorhoods with little to no zoning restrictions, with virtually nonstop construction of new housing, almost nobody lives here, the neighborhood is completely hollowed out, and all of these new luxury homes are mostly party houses used by rich college students and bachelorette parties.
This is a short-sighted and simplistic analysis of how land value works. I'm in a terrific location. Walking distance from the Texas State Fair and Cotton Bowl. Walking distance from Deep Ellum with all of its hip clubs and restaurants. Walking distance from downtown. Walking distance to the Dallas Convention Center. You can get to the Longhorn Ballroom, Southside Ballroom, and American Airlines Center in under ten minutes.
The only downside for buyers of the past? It was a poor neighborhood. All of those multifamily apartment complexes being torn down were full of poor people, mostly dark-skinned, many of them non-English speaking. Now that their landlords spent the past 15 years doing zero maintenance until they could get the buildings condemned and force all of the tenants out without needing to have grounds for eviction, they can sell the land, and it doesn't make any difference if the experience of actually living here gets shitty because of all the parties and not having any neighbors. The buyers don't care because the buyers don't actually live here. The single-night renters don't care because they don't live here, either.
I did not hear a complaint about what it was doing to their property values. I did hear:
> virtually nonstop construction of new housing, almost nobody lives here, the neighborhood is completely hollowed out, and all of these new luxury homes are mostly party houses used by rich college students and bachelorette parties.
> It’s not the only factor, or even the biggest, but still…
But that's the key, really. In most places, banning short-term rentals will not move the needle on housing affordability.
It's like trying to optimize the thing that's causing 3% of the slowdown when things that are responsible for 40%, 30%, and 25% are right there, staring you in the face.
I thought the original idea of Airbnb was to open a spare room in the house you already own to guests. I've used it only in this way and it really helped with a financial crunch, and given that I lived there and was present while guests where there, there was no negative impact to the community at all. I know people have been buying houses just for Airbnb rental, but that's not everyone.
If anything, there is a housing cartel that we need an Uber-like blitz (times a million) to destroy. In the same way that Uber ignored local taxi regulations, you would need to ignore local zoning regulations. Just "build, baby, build", become valuable, and then, with your fait-accompli in hand, bribe the various local governments -- just like Uber.
Except -- if it took the combined might of Uber's VCs, and the disposable human battering ram that was Travis Kalanick, just to disrupt the puny little taxi industry, imagine what it would take to change housing. Ain't never gonna happen.
I live in Lisbon. Over 80% of housing units in the historic Alfama neighborhood are now vacation rentals. This is the most historically Portuguese neighborhood in the capital. It was the only neighborhood to survive the earthquake in 1755. Fado was born there.
Yes, it's a failure of government policy, but I don't think it's hyperbole to say that AirBnB and its ilk destroyed that community. That is, assuming you define "community" as a group of people and not a group of buildings.
> Comical to suggest that AirBnB "ruined communities"
it has absolutely done so in the same way that a bunch of motels springing up in your neighborhood would completely change it and not necessarily for the better
it also greatly constrained the availability of housing for locals, therefore pushing up prices, so that people not living in the city could visit for cheaper; probably ok if you're in the tourism business, otherwise not
Sure, but if someone started running heavy industrial concrete equipment in a residential zoned block 24/7, than the city wouldn't be blaming poor people for the issues.
The fact is you can go to travel websites, and the first 70k listings in some cities are for commercial hotel/share services running out of residential zoned homes.
Low-income people are easier to squeeze, and "with a computer" convenience doesn't make it an ethical securitization model. =3
Yeah I'm tired of this too. Real estate hyperinflation is almost entirely the fault of chronically under-building real estate due to regulatory capture by landlords, legacy homeowners, and speculators. The real estate market is more or less a cartel in quite a few places.
AirBnB is a small factor. I suppose it drives up prices, but only because supply is so absurdly tight.
100% of code uses 100% of resources. Let's not downplay the role of Airbnb as both a company and a phenomena for causing inflation. But more than that, remember that a lot happens at the margins in these markets: what's actually liquid or in play is a small part of the overall stock. So anything that messes with that will have an outsized effect.
You can define it as under-building, but that's only one side of the political effect. E.g. the UK net immigration rate has been pretty enormous, and it seems lopsided to call it under-building to have not built homes for a giant number of people coming from their previous homes elsewhere in the world to the UK.
Speaking as the son of an immigrant, married to an immigrant, for the people who can only think tribally, and must assume I am doing the same.
Underutilization of land as a result on speculation on the growth of land prices is a major reason, even Manhattan has massive chunks of real estate that are vacant, a land value tax would fix this.
That's an effect of massive demand, not a cause (or not a first-order cause). If you know (and vote for) loads more demand is coming the more you wait, you will wait. If demand were more limited to natural population growth levels, there'd be no point waiting.
I agree that both things are caused by one level or government or another. I'm just saying that under building is not the only explanation. It's probably not even the most natural one. It's maybe a second or effect once you've decided to admit multiple cities' worth of people each year.
This happened even in areas where holiday home ownership and rental was common as a business.
The failure of government to grapple with the negative effects of Airbnb is a separate thing. Airbnb are, in fact, in control of their own morality.