This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Undermining Property Rights In San Francisco
Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man.com,
Expanding the Regulatory State with the “Anti Airbnb Measure”
The best thing one can say about “Proposition F” is that it will be up to voters to decide on its adoption. However, it actually shouldn’t be up to them, because it concerns an issue that is really none of their business.
Here is what it is about in a nutshell: as noted in this article, if the proposition is adopted, “you will be able to do anything in your bedroom, except rent it” (sic). Meaning, if one has a spare bedroom one occasionally rents out to travelers via Airbnb, one will in future no longer be able to do so – by law.

San Francisco: a nice place, but housing and rental prices have become unaffordable for many people
Photo credit: Alex Zyuzikov
In short, other people will now decide what one can or cannot do with one’s own property. Given that this particular use of property doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s property rights in the slightest, there should not even be a debate over whether it should or shouldn’t be “allowed”.
So what is behind this push to make life difficult for Airbnb, countless tourists and countless people who make a little money on the side with the help of Airbnb? In all likelihood it is a well-connected established business lobby. The main suspects are hotel owners, whose businesses are under threat from Airbnb’s competition.
What makes this case especially bizarre are the utterly transparent lies used to argue in favor of adopting the measure, in combination with San Francisco’s terrible housing reality. Note that the interests that are actually behind the proposition are craftily hiding behind the “little guy” (whom they are about to trample on). As an aside, it should be seen as a huge red flag that Dianne Feinstein is all for it as well.

Consumers love it: Airbnb
According to the article linked above:
“The measure would impose additional restrictions on short-term rentals. Supporters can claim to be the little guys because the deep-pocketed opposition — headlined by the home-sharing technology platform Airbnb — has $8 million to bury the less than $400,000 raised by the “yes” campaign, according to proponent Dale Carlson. Prop F does have high-profile supporters, notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein, but when the other side outspends you by a 20-1 ratio, you can call yourself the underdog.
The No on F folks also stand for the little guy (or gal) who rents out a guest room to make ends meet. San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener says he opposes the measure because more and more of his constituents rely on Airbnb. Many are women, often older women, who are “house poor” and presently could not afford to buy the homes they bought years ago. They don’t want to take on a full-time roommate; they also enjoy the energy young travelers bring with them. “The one thing they have is that spare bedroom,” Wiener told the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board last month. If Prop F is approved, “they are going to get thrown under the bus.”
The “yes” folks have a populist message. Former San Francisco City Attorney Louise Renne put it this way: “The short-term rentals, in my view, are reducing the housing stock.” Tourists don’t belong in residential neighborhoods, the “yes” side adds. Speculators are buying properties so that they can cash in by setting up pseudo-hotels that aren’t up to code. Something must be done.
The “yes” side’s remedy, however, threatens to cut into the income of middle-class residents — people like architect Kepa Askenasy, who told me last year she was “just trying to survive in this beautiful city and do it in a way that’s positive for everybody.” Because City Hall adopted legislation championed by former Supervisor David Chiu, she registered with the city and pays the 14 percent hotel tax. Airbnb now pays about $1 million each month in taxes. Askenasy is proud that the San Francisco startup also threw in some $25 million that would have been levied as taxes if the Chiu legislation had taken effect earlier. Now, she said Thursday, critics should give the new rules time to work.
What really frosts Askenasy is that a small group of city big shots wants to cut into her side business on the grounds that there is not enough affordable housing. City Hall failed to ensure there would be more homes for working residents. Large-scale developers did not build those homes. Somehow the proponents of Prop F are blaming the sharing economy — that is, entrepreneurial San Franciscans — for a housing shortage.”
(emphasis added)
As noted above, this “housing shortage” argument cannot be called anything but a brazen, transparent lie. Given house prices and rental prices in San Francisco, there can be only one reason for the housing shortage: over-regulation that is keeping the housing stock too small. One wonders moreover, if spare bedrooms can no longer be legally rented out, how exactly is this going to increase the housing stock?
We were unable to find out what the proponents of the measure have in mind in this context. Perhaps the “city big shots” plan to have them confiscated, so they can decide who should stay there? After all, the property rights of their owners will already be violated, so surely they can be violated some more.
Given that regulations are undoubtedly co-responsible for the fact that housing in SF has become unaffordable for average people (the Fed’s insane monetary policy is admittedly the chief culprit), how are even more regulations going to do the trick? Regarding the affordability of housing in SF, we are not exaggerating one bit: consider this story of a software engineer who is living in the streets in a rusty van because SF rents are simply out of this world.

Median San Francisco home prices compared to California and nation-wide prices (by Paragon Real Estate) : a bubble for the history books.
Apart from the fact that the proposition is an attempt to restrict the property rights of people and their ability to earn an additional income that they actually rely on and need in many cases, the point about tourism shouldn’t be neglected either. No back-pack tourists can possibly afford to stay in this hyper-expensive burg without the help of services like Airbnb. As the article notes:
Keith Freedman rents out a spare bedroom and a Murphy bed in his apartment’s living room. He told me, “Most of the guests I get couldn’t afford to come to San Francisco and stay in a hotel.” Gag Airbnb and San Francisco becomes a town for well-heeled tourists only. If Prop F is approved, big government will dictate what people cannot do in their own bedroom – rent it out.
(emphasis added)
Conclusion
We have ceased to live in a free market economy a long time ago. The only sector of the economy that has managed to remain relatively free in many ways is the technology sector, because it innovates so rapidly that it tends to stay a step or two ahead of politicians and the oligarchies giving them their orders. They simply cannot catch up quickly enough with regulating all these innovations to death.
Lately technology has begun to invade the turf of a number of established service businesses, such as banking (think Bitcoin, and now Bitgold as well), taxi services (Uber) and hospitality services (Airbnb). This provides us all with a reminder of how free market capitalism is actually supposed to work. In the market economy, no successful entrepreneur can rest on his laurels. He can be deposed from his exalted position at anytime by a start-up competitor offering a better or cheaper (or both) product to consumers.
Should horse breeders and buggy whip manufacturers have been protected from the motor car? Should the inept US Post Office have been protected from the evils of email and instant messaging? The answer to such questions seems obvious enough. Why should an exception be made for taxis and hotels?
Note here that such measures as a rule see nominally “capitalist” cronies and assorted socialists/collectivists happily working together: the former because they want to use the State to preserve their income by force, the latter because they want to stop economic progress, as they hope this will increase the number of State-dependents voting for them.
Do not fall for their snake oil.

Unfortunately a great many people don’t understand that asking the government for “help” is simply going to invite more of the same.
- 36982 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


And i'm the weird one for calling zoning and building permits unconstitutional. Fuck this shit, fuck San Fran right in the ass.
"Fuck this shit, fuck San Fran right in the ass."
Uhhm, Im pretty sure they would enjoy that.
"Fuck this shit, fuck San Fran right in the ass."
Probably happens in the Castro district all the time.
I’m starting AirBarnPub
Every apartment should be a club, damn those liquor licenses, damn that drinking age limit.
This isn’t a bar, it’s a party and we met our friends online.
We are not going to mind the drinking hours because we are not a nightclub, we‘re
AirBarnPub.
And if you don’t like it, don’t sue me.
If we make the rent of a one bedroom apartment $6,000 a month you should be happy
Just rent it out Airbnb for $8000 per month.
When all service business are gone because hotel guest never use them, suck it up.
Yee Haw!!!!
what
Because I know I want to live next to one of these new people every night "hotels".
Get a fucking grip. This stepping on my property rights BS is absolute shit. These are URBAN RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods. I don't give a flying fuck if someone wants to rent out their house by the MONTH, but a new person or group of people every damn day/weekend? Stay up all night being loud because thery are gone in 1-2 days anyway, fuck your work schedule.... Really?
These I can do whatever I want with my property, absolute property right douche pimples are the first ones to call into code enforcement complaining the neighbor has (insert a million things like) roosters, pigs, parking in my driveway, whatever... If you want that type of lifestyle then live in the boondocks out in the county, which then no one wants to rent out vis-a-vis airbnb anyway.
Euclid vs Ambler Realty
Read it.
Oh, the irony of your threat that isn't.
"fuck San Fran right in the ass"
I am sure you meant that as an insult, but uhm, well...
This isn't just San Francisco or California. If this goes through a lot of states will push for this "law".
One only needs to look at the taxes associated with hotels and hotel parking.......
8% sales and 4% room tax in Upstate NY. 12% tax if you want a bed for a night.
People are scurrying around because the tax rate has crossed the compliance barrier. People now are simply not complying.
A good thing, IMO. Maybe they will find out they cannot have the legacy costs where property taxes must be like $10k on a house UPSTATE.
pods
Because NY state had some stupid ass high hotel tax I avoided travelling though the state like it had the plague.
I worked in Indiana and visited family in Massachusetts.
There were 2 major routes. One though NY state and one though PA.
After staying in a NY motel and then paying their I-90 tolls and extra high gas prices, I never travelled that route again.
It was always Pennsylvania. I only had to cut across New York just north of New York city and always made sure that the gas tank had enough to get me across that cursed state. NY was not going to get a single dime from me.
Best type of protest is protest of the wallet. Kudos.
PA turnpike tolls are OBSCENE. Highway robbery, plain and simple.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/NJ_Pa_turnpikes_collected_mos...
I've traveled quite a few miles on the PA turnpike...
I do the AirBnb gig with my guest house located on the property. I clean toilets, shower, change sheets and towels, vacume, dust etc. I do the maintaince and up keep.....and all and I mean ALL of the cash I make goes to paying property taxes to the county.
I am a slave, but now I can't even be a slave....what am I to call myself then?
Sailboat, or van down by the river. Take your pick, but it's long past time for moar people to hoist the pirate and AnCap flags, and to stop contributing/supporting a corrupt system.
The system is so fragile now that it does not even require individuals to do anything radical. Just enough people who decide to drop cable, reduce expenses like phone and power, drive much less, own less, simplify thier lives. Deflation is a bitch. It does not require much input in order to keep spiraling.
Exactly. And whereas by making small adjustments you can be saving money, freeing up time, and generally making your life significantly better, if instead you aim for that expensive sailboat in the ocean, you end up all alone, wet and risking your life in huge storms, with equipment breaking down all the time.
Says the author:
"In short, other people will now decide what one can or cannot do with one’s own property. Given that this particular use of property doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s property rights in the slightest, there should not even be a debate over whether it should or shouldn’t be 'allowed'."
What a fool. People are constantly told what they can or cannot do with their own property -- something called zoning or nuisance laws. You can't play music at 130 decibels, or run a garbage dump or 24 hour drive-through restaurant or have 48 noisy dogs or a sheep ranch. Duh.
"This particular use of property" most certainly does create a nuisance for others. Your neighbors don't want AirBnB tourists swarming their neighborhood or building. Your neighbors don't want an unlicensed motel next door, which sooner or later will attract party trashers or meth cookers or whatever. Your neighbors don't want to worry whether their children are safe with a constant flow of strangers next door. I say that as a huge fan of AirBnB who has spent more than a cumulative 4 months in their rentals. But you have to recognize the other side of the story. Let the voters decide, and see which point of view is most numerous.
Yah cuz might makes right in 'Murica /sarc
"Let the voters decide"
You dolt, that's the very problem we're discussing here. Not the solution
"This particular use of vagina" most certainly does create a nuisance for others. Your neighbors don't want chavscum swarming their neighborhood or building. Your neighbors don't want a chav family next door, which sooner or later will attract party trashers or meth cookers or whatever. Your neighbors don't want to worry whether their children are safe with a constant flow of redneck kids next door. I say that as a huge fan of unprotected sex who has spent more than a cumulative 4 months in their bitches. But you have to recognize the other side of the story. Let the voters decide, and see which point of view is most numerous.
If the voters decide to burn you at the stake would it be just?
Of course regular renters are always quiet, never cook meth, and are polite to the neighbors.
Speaking as someone who lives in a place without zoning laws and where building permits are basically ignored... you really don't want to get rid of those if you have even half a brain.
Nope.. they would like that.
LET IT CRASH.... California is so screwed when the IPO mania breaks
Let me get my Kardashian/Miley Cyrus Bowel Movement Notification App on the market first. I'm sure someone will pay $Billions for it.
Then you can go out and party like Lamar Odom!
Then you can go out and party like Lamar Odom!
Like the last time that happened and everything ended up being ok?
Gubermint always tries to find a way to fuck up a good thing, but the same people who keep getting fucked vote for moar of it..., idiots.
Isn't it spelled gewbamant and not gubermint? Just asking.
We need MOAR SOSHALIZM!!!!
My favorite spelling is GuavaMint. Fruity.
Capital investments are ALWAYS at risk, so they (the hoteliers, in this case) seeks ways such as this to protect themselves and their capital.
"if it moves, tax it - if it keeps moving, regulate it - if it stops moving, subsidize it"
If it moves in place - fuck it.
IKR. The irony here is that private property owners are attempting to dictate how private property owners can dispose of their property. Eventually this creature turns on the villagers.
AirBNB and Uber are illegal
I am not happy that they are illegal, I don't want them to be illegal, but they are illegal. Fucking regiatory statists assholes turned these rights over to the government a long time ago, requiring medallions for taxis and licensing for hotels for "consumer protection" and whatever other nanny-state bullshit justification they use to take our rights away slowly.
Now all of a sudden they bitch about a police state?
Fuck you right in the ass you fucking statists, this is exactly what we warned about when they passed these bullshit laws all those years ago.
Nothing about this situation should surprise anyone who is in any way aware of what's going on in the world today.
And yes, this is entirely the fault of the nanny state fuckwits who control almost all of California, and are rapidly gaining control of the whole country.
yes people talk about 'disruption' all the time as if the notion of just eliminating medallion licensing at 0 cost to the savers via the inflatoin based ipo scam-market.
forget uber's captured ipo scam. consider the idea of just prohibiting guilds and licensing.
the question then is how do you keep assholes from being jerky taxi drivers more than they already are.
answer; i don't know but cab fares would be half the cost.
when i was in san francisco i saw around 42985476464 bums
Must have been a cold, foggy day. Step in any shit in your travels? And I don't mean dog shit either.
They are not bums, they are the working poor, formerly known as the professional middle class.
So just charge them for sex, and let them spend the night for free.
My thoughts. Kitchen rental, $100.00. When you're tired of cooking, feel free to go lie down in that extra room.
The permit Nazis, the zoning board, and low level local and state "regulators" and tax collectgors will be among the first to swing in the breeze when they lynchings start in earnest.
Property rights in the USA. LOL,,, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Don't pay "your" taxes or put an RV in your driveway, or God forgive, plant a vegetable garden in your front yard.... You'll soon see who's your daddy!
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/government-evicting-nevada-family-eminen...
And some places don't allow for the collection of RAINWATER.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS234US234&q=against+law+rain+water&gws_rd=ssl
Look to Germany and the protests there against immigration and trade policy.
Speaking out against this is useless. And if you do speak out your neighbor will report you in a second.
Im sure all of us would like to burn in a back bedroom of a bnb home with no smoke detectors, nor fire escape. Or do we go full libertarian and say 'inspect every property you sleep in as if it were your last.'
I didn't down vote you but what the hell are you talking about. Where I live you are supposed to have smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in your home.
'Supposed to' ? As in a regulation? A local hotel was 'supposed to' have Carbon Monoxide detectors in every room, and yet in a room above the swimming pool equipment area, two families died (in two incidents over a year apart) in that room from carbon monoxide poisoning.
As a libertarian I am fine with folks staying in an unregulated hotel if that is the choice they make. I am fine with other hotels offering up a set of standards and inspections to which they will adhere, and they can include the cost of those in their prices. I will make my choices based on my priority system, you on yours.
The market can work it out.
Asshole, so yea build a huge regulatory system for a once in a million evert. And yes inidivual HOUSES are much safer than hotels in the event of a fire, even without smoke alarms.
Anyway, regulation is not working, ON TOP of the huge fucking regulatory apparatis the government built to lord over hotels, including unbelievable mirco-management to the point of regulating the AMOUNT OF WATER THAT COMES OUT OF THE FUCKING SHOWERHEAD, the rooms are still dirty and crawling with fucking bedbugs. So much for micro-managing hotels.
NO FUCK YOU ASSHOLE! You'd be the first little crybaby complaining that your room has bedbugs because YOU FAILED TO INSPECT IT SHITHEAD! What a fucking douche you are .
Anyone would complain about bedbugs. Red herring argument.
For Christ's sake, this blog used to be populated with intelligent people, now, just a bunch of morons who can't think their way out of a paper bag. (you included). I don't have the time nor the inclination to explain the concept you and that other shithead are missing.
You're just pissed that you made a stupid fucking argument. Try to think before you post, you fucking cunt.
ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO KEEP ME READING ZH!
BYOSD.
No, we go full libertarian and say, you are a fucking adult, make your own decisions. I know, its so hard to accept that some unionized government drone is not the only person qualified to decide for you if you should stay somewhere or not.
Do you people realize it is rent controlled apartments that are being rented as hotels
on airbnb?
They are paying $500 per month for an apartment who's market valued is $5000 per month.
the rent controllers are grossing about $8000 per month on this rent controlled place?
You all sound like Obama wading into local issues he doesn't know dick about.
Which brings us back to the Fed and how much they lie about inflation.
Rent controlled apartments become 'unfairly' cheap for the tenant after about 20 years, since the real inflation is in the 5-10% range, easily.
So all this theft goes by largely unnoticed, and even here it's not the Fed that's left as a bag holder, but instead all the landlords (large and small), who get upset because the details of the lies of the system end up making them less profitable.
But rather than blame the tenants who are trying to make do (often by abusively gaming the system, no doubt), I would rather blame the fucking assholes who set things up this way, with BS paper money + lies + war + full spectrum domination...
In any case, I don't see the landlords as any less opportunistic than the tenants - I'm just eatin' popcorn as I watch people get upset and self-righteous when in fact there is not much difference between them.
Something doesn't sound right here... Don't rent controlled appartments require proof of financial need by the renter? The regulation surrounding a rent controlled appartment should make it impossible already for person to 'rent' a bunch of them and then airbnb them out... or even the owners of the rent controlled appartments to airbnb them.
Only a hard, bloody revolution will restore our once free market. All government must be abolished!
as usual - rinse, repeat
Only a revolution will get rid of the capitalist oligarchy, end the government created and enforced concept of "private property" that has enslaved Western mankind, and restore the basic freedom that all the other animals on the planet have.
Then when all government is abolished, people get together and make rules and what do you have? Government. People must be governed because they are inherently evil from birth as it is written or as God has told us and if you haven't noticed; it is true. Does not mean people cannot and do not do good; they do, but anyone honest with themselves would never want their thoughts recorded and played back to anyone they have a relationship with.
So the libs do want to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. Just like the repubs.
So the libs do want to regulate what goes on in the bedroom. Just like the repubs.
The way I see it it's pretty simple . . . it's a warped version of penis envy . . . . they can't get any (without paying for it) so they want to regulate what everyone else does in their bedroom.
.
What goes around comes around. How high are the housing prices going to be in Californication when their water runs out?? And no . . . . "El Nino`" this coming winter is not going to save them from that happening. As Sam Kinison said: "We have deserts in America assholes . . . we just don't live in them".
A green one for you for the Sam Kinison quote.
That man gave us much wisdom and a great new use for the alphabet.
Dude what the fuck.
You completely MISSED the point.
What San Francisco (and LA to an extent) is now suffering from is "Airbnb Tycoons" What this means is that you've got these guys that are going around leasing and even sometimes buying from 5-10 (and more) properties for the SOLE PURPOSE of puting them up on Airbnb! This is now solely what they to make a living. Basically Airbnb slum lords.
This means, if you have an apartment or live on a family street, suddenly you have a shit ton of random people trafficking through partying and basically "doing the weekend" shit in a town known for its nightlife. Lets not even get into how the parking is all fucked up with endless Airbnb -- in a city already known for its fucked up parking.
This isn't even about personal property rights anymore. It's ALL about people trampling on other peoples property rights to use the "sharing economy" to get rich. They can fuck squarely off.
Y E S O N F
If they are making a profit by buying up properties and making them available to people on AirBnB, then they are obviously creating a benefit to the world, else those renters wouldn't be paying those "slumlords" economic profits.
These are the angels of america, creating real benefits and real wealth, and allowing people from all over the world to enjoy travel at a better price than that offered by hotels.
Everything that spews from your d!ck-sucking lips is a regurgitation of Orwell's warning that people will be told "War is Peace" and "Freedom is slavery." Everything you say is so wrong that the audience of ZH is laughing, LAUGHING at your post.
---
You're high on dope.
I think the noise and disturbance can be rectified if there are long-term consequences for the loud people (ex: few would rent to someone who got blacklisted with negative reviews from trusted sources).
In general though, as a client, I welcome the potential to traveling for a lot less. It seems to me that this could be great for end-users, great for property owners, great for renters, and also OK for the people all around, but for sure it is a big problem for the entrenched, old-school hotel industry, who were already in trouble due to the economy.
You sound like someone who's income is affected by this, otherwise I doubt you would be getting so excited over it. Is the best solution really to make all this illegal? Damn...
Great idea; screen them and have the government make the determination...right?!
I disagree in some respects. If I was your neighbor, would you be upset if I had parties to all hours of the night?
The question is this, do the rights of the property owners renting infringe on the property rights of others in their neighborhood? We should consider that there are a lot of public goods all owners forced to pay for with taxes (road, sidewalks, air, sewer, trash collection, etc).
If I rent a B&B room it is not to party in the room, it is to visit SF. This isn't the spring break crowd from Daytona Beach. Chances are very good that the car stays at the parking that the renter provides (usually the case, otherwise parking is unreliable and you lose lots of rentals to those who do provide secure parking) and the tourists take public transportation into town, such as buses, taxis, Uber, etc. Most B&Bs are scrupulous about their accommodations, frequently belong to associations of B&Bs and know their market. Tourists are generally out-of-towners and just dote on staying in neighborhoods full of flop houses! :-(
Sadly, because of the debauch of our once egalitarian society, the term "sharing economy" sounds like an oxymoron.
So did San Fran solve the slumlord problem? Nope. Instead of treating that festering wound they work on issues that aren't a problem.
Fractional Reserve Housing
or Repothication Housing....
I like to think of it as recycling surplus accommodation capacity.
As long as rental and ownership rights are observed. The FED and Banksters do wit with your money and mine
What you described is afequately handled by tort law and laws against creating a public nuisance.
You miss the point. Section 8 housing is the corporate/political slum-lords. I saw nothing about section 8 housing here; did you?
Who would want to visit San Fransicko is beyond understanding, but to each their own.
Do you see now how Fed money printing absolutely corrupts markets and thereby societies?
Fuck the neo Bplsheviks... beat 'em like Putin did !!
fuck airbnb and the wall street ipo business model scam for the startup world.
people can rent their shit out on craigslist.
i am in favor of shutting down airbnb. let people rebuild it on TORR and let the authorities try and shut down craigslist when people post on there for a FIXED FEE.
AIRBNB is like UBER and is simply the IPO model based on centralizing all business behavior for the purpose of labor arbitrage and capital arbitrage.
airbnb is the worlds biggest hotel chain that makes a percentage of profits without owning a single rental property. fuck them and fuck san francisco. let them vote on burning their own wall street captured IPO economy . maybe they will take a stand.
illegal cash in the hand rentals will continue as always and the sheeple who complain about missing 'airbnb' can go fuck themselves. put in a little more effort and rent your shit with cash, avoid taxes, and avoid airbnb's 'fee'.
You're an idiot. AirBnB is a great service. As is Uber for that matter. There is real value in the ability of technology to facilitate sharing.
"AirBnB is a great service"
Yea until your next door neighbor puts their place up and "rents" to different randoms three times per week. These same people continually park their rental car in your spot, drop trash all over the place and go out to the bars until fuckthirty AM coming "home" like eighth graders on Crack.
A real "great service" then eh...
Neighbors can become unregistered halfway houses in most states. As long as "guests" stay for at least 30 days it is not considered transient. But, of course, crafty folks can obscure all this and get away with running de facto flop houses. One of my neighbors is doing this right now (nice neighborhood, not a slum).
As the economy goes full retard, count on people to do everything they can to hold on.
I installed extra CCTVs, have warned the kids, and even told my neighbor that if anything funky happens it is on like Donkey Kong. Having a steady stream of strangers flopping across the street doesn't have me all warm and fuzzy. So, yeah, I can see how Airbnb could cause some real anxiety with folks. The key is understanding zoning. If the property isn't zoned for transient housing, it is illegal.
I feel for you. One of these "protected status" homes down the road, (yes, alcoholism is a disease that falls under fair housing act- which is the good side of the spectrum)had a great tenant. Killed the neighbor's pet with a hammer.
Our state sets the limit at 8 unrelated people with 2 residential staff members. Ten people living next door, 8 of which are highly questionable. Now I think that there should be opportunities for people that have had issues with addiction and the law, hell most of us have at some point. But to concentrate them like that is asking for trouble.
NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard) is a gripe I seldom agree with, but lets have some consideration for the neighbors....
Wahhh ... wahhhh...
Bullish on HOA rules. Its no longer about Purple doors....
Yea Craigslist... Yea you can surely rent for the weekend to very "concientous people".
What if your Craigslist "renter" completely trashes the place then keys your neighbors car on the way out to make their point. Well guess what, you're fucked and your neighbor will sue you for damanges.
Fuck all this short term shit. Six months or longer with a proper single party lease. Done and done.
FWIW, many B&Bs have their own websites and also list with other services such as VRBO or Trip advisor.
" Yes we can! "
Not to worry; Fukushima radiation will ensure that most Californians will have life-ending cancers within 10 years; lots of residences will be up for sale; but who will be left to buy?
Good point, look at the bright side. Ray O. Sunshine.
(perverted) Law --- Funk Threnody Records, LLC. - DrY yo
Law, huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, oh hoh, oh
Law huh yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all
Law, huh good God
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
Oh, Law, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
Law means tears to thousands of mothers eyes
When their sons go off to work and lose their lives
I said
Law, huh good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
Law whoa Lord
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
Law, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreak
Law, friend only to the legislator
Oh Law, is made an enemy to all mankind
Perverted Law blows my mind
Law has caused unrest within the younger generation
Induction, then destruction who wants to slave away
Law, good God, y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it, say it, say it
Law, uh huh, yeah, huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
Law, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
Law, it's got one friend that's the lobby maker
Oh, Law has shattered many young man's dreams
Made him disabled bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious to spend fighting Laws these days
Law can't give life it can only take it away, ooh
Law, huh, good God y'all
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again
Law, whoa, Lord
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
Law, it ain't nothin' but a right breaker
Law, friend only to the legislator,
the lobby maker
Life, liberty, and property, tell me
Is there no place for them today
They say we must sacrifice to the state
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way
Law, huh, good God y'all
What is it good for?
You tell 'em, say it, say it, say it, say it
Law, good Lord, huh
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it, nothing
Law, it ain't nothin' but a heartbreaker
I just had a conversation about this yesterday. The lefty line of thinking here is that there are a bunch of people misusing AirBnb and buying up properties to rent on a short-term basis. I'm sure there is some of that, but not nearly as much as proponents suggest (and it's not even clear that would be a bad thing even if true)
The real phenomenon is landlords are taking their properties out of the traditional long-term rental business and moving them into short-term rentals. It's debatable if there is any P/L pickup from short-term rentals when you consider increased management costs, but what is dramatically different is the risk that a lessee turns into a squatter! SF rental rules so ridiculously favor tenants that landlords all have this worry that a guy will stop paying but refuse to leave, and it can apparently cost $30-40K for a landlord to enforce their rights. Short-term rentals remove that risk as the protection for a lessee for a week or two or virtually non-existent.
So once again it is a series of stupid laws that create the market distortions that another set of stupid laws are supposed to remedy.
By the way, a couple of weeks ago, every business-class hotel in the city was priced at $750-1000/night. That was extreme, but even today, every hotel can comfortably charge $350-500/night. It's not like hotel margins are shrinking because of AirBnB, so I'm really not sure who is driving this law besides the usual misguided lefties.
---
Dude it's not just buying properties. Its people that go out and somehow LEASE 10 different apartments and then put em up on Airbnb.
The property owner is getting screwed. THEY should get maximum benefit because THEY pay the property taxes, incur liability and actually own the damned thing.
The neighbors are getting screwed because you've got all these random people (now with building security keys. What could go wrong?) partying like Mazatlan spring break...
YES ON F -- ALL DAY EVERY DAY TWICE ON SUNDAY. PERIOD.
Aside from the fact that "property" doesn't have rights (citizens do) the idea that you should be able to do whatever you want with your property in a big city is ridiculous and never been true. (I own a house in SF and couldn't put up a 50 story hotel, even if I wanted to).
I'm no fan of the city telling me MORE stuff I can/can't do with my house, but most people live in multi-unit buildings in this city, and you're talking about strangers having access to your entry and hallways 24/7, just so your neighbor can rent his rent controlled closet out to some German coder, while he goes off to smoke hash in Bali.
AirBnB is not "technology," yeesh, everybody knows it's just an "app" that lets you get around the zoning laws of your town. Just like Uber gets around laws preventing Gypsy cabs.
Apps to avoid laws are not "technology," any more than Silkroad was. They're ways guys in their pajamas come up with to advertise illegal shit without getting caught.
AirBnB has fucked enough neighborhoods and neighbors, that they've made enemies all across America. We'll see who "wins," although I think now AirBnB has fucked both renters and prop owners by trying to cash in on stuff that was underground for decades.
Thanks to AirBnB's "technology," everybody will end up worse off.
Just like the American Tabacco Corp is gonna do to weed eventually.
You want to do by law wjhat every damn landlord can do freely - if they want to.
Dude, your argument doesn't make any sense.
Wait, who are you hoping to protect with the law? The property owner? They can always just put a No Subletting Clause in their contract. I thought that was pretty standard already. You don't need new legislation to stop sublets.
As for the neighbors, if it's purely private property, it's really none of their business. If there is communal property managed by an HOA, then let the HOA make the decision to ban AirBnB if that's what the owners want.
So who do you think you are protecting with these laws? The only people who I can see benefiting are the existing hotel owners. The city as a whole will suffer from less tourists, and as for wannabe renters, except for a brief period of market dislocation when existing entrepreneurs vomit out of their leases, it won't significantly change the supply/demand imbalance.
It's so weird to me because something like AirBnB should be so attractive to the left - it is ecologically efficient, cost effective, friendly to the less affluent, and frankly a richer, more interesting experience than staying at a hotel.
I see random people every day.
Assuming the regulation is defeated it will put further pressure on house prices since the assumption will be the average homeowner can carry more house via rental income.
Nothing against AirBnB, just thing SanFran house prices are a bubble that will take care of itself once the Millionaire herd is culled via a market correction.
I suppose that some of the lower range hotel people could be participating, but I think that the motel people would be competing for the same market with the B&Bs. Somehow I have a feeling that it is more the Industrial tour people who are trying to force people onto the buses and cruise liners and out of their cars. I'd be interested in others thoughts on who is behind this foolishness.
hotel margins are most definitely shrinking. but other than that , you are right .
I've rented houses and appartments with a 'no sub-letting' clause. Do we really need another law?
Some people rented these places decades ago and at that time no such airbnb thing was available.
Many of the original owners have since died.
Here is the propostion along with analysis and arguments pro and con.
http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_San_Francisco_Initiative_to_Restrict_Shor...
In the end there are more renters then rentiers but Air bnb has spent big money on the campaign.
And if the guy below you rents out to some Indians who love to cook with curry? Will you love airbnb then?
What will you do if the guy below you is indian and like to cook with curry? Or a white guy that lkes to cook with curry? Will you call in the government to outlaw that as well?
Yeah!!... and what if Tim Curry moves in and starts cooking Indians? What the fuck you gonna do? Bad boys, bad boys.
You need to get out more. Try staying at some B&Bs. I haven't encountered many with kitchen privileges. Most B&B rentals are just for a day or two because most folks are touring as a family by auto rather than a bus load of folks with cameras around their necks. They eat locally at restaurants and pubs, take in the sights, attractions and entertainment, buy more gas and get out of Dodge for the next destination. If they stay longer it is because they think they may like the area, and if that is so, there is a good likelihood that they will return. This summer my wife and I toured Scotland and Ireland for 6 weeks that way. It is a delightful way to travel if you want to avoid the bus and cruise liner set and really get to see stuff and meet natives. We did things that were unique and not economically possible any other way. Don't let the fascists con you. This is simply another way the oligarchs and corrupt pols win through government action. You are only limiting your own options and denying your community a useful marginal revenue stream primarily in the middle class. The mercantilistic want MOAR!
Question is how can SF still sell condos for 1.5 million when nextdoor is a hotel for drunken 20 somethings?
"In short, other people will now decide what one can or cannot do with one’s own property."
So what else is new? Get used to it. Check your zoning/occupation/health/business laws. Ranch near Area 51 was outright confiscated by the Air Force.
What I never could figure out is why anyone would AirBnB their place out when you could have your place civil forfitured if your renter does anything illegal like drugs.
Property rights?
IN SAN FRANCISCO????
(or for that matter in The People's Democratic Republic of California)
That's a good one!
But 40 years too late!!!
if you have ever lived in SF you knw that no one goes by the law as far as renting...hahaha. people rent out the backs of their garages. mother-in-laws are illegal but everone has one for rent and they are listed on the internet. never seen the city go after anyone.
This is what life under a corporate regime looks like.
This is about the SF hotel industry forcing people into their properties instead of the AirBnB thing.
Apparently, the author has never heard the word "zoning" before. Property rights go both ways - when I buy my house, I have a right to know whether I wil be living next to a hotel.
They want to be right even if they are wrong.
They don't want the facts, they want to scream.
They don't live in San Francisco.
They are as bad as the screaming "stop with the facts" left.
"Property rights"? You're joking, aren't you?
There has been no such thing since the Property Abolition Acts of 1964 and 1968, in which the federal government took over the right to tell you what you are allowed to do with "your property"—which means, of course, that it's their property, not yours.
"Sharing" is yet another usury scheme. A ponzi whose exit is an IPO.
The usury rates are higher than those of small businesses already following law.
Sure, it's all fine and dandy until your next door neighbor decides that the only way to keep up with their mortgage is to pimp out their house.
I have neighbors that I absolutely fucking hate and keep praying that the housing crash Gods will return to send them back to wherever the fuck it is they came from.
But then they figured out that in addition to HAMP, they've been able to rent out their house on airbnb to who the fuck knows. I'm so tired of finding new neighbors every third week.
Sorry for the rant, but I live this all the time and it sucks donkey balls.