Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, it does. We see these kinds of restrictions and limitations on businesses like UBER and Airbnb overwhelmingly in leftist cities and states, not in conservative-leaning cities and states. Also, settlement talks say nothing about whether a law is ultimately lawful or not.
This has nothing to do with the left, it has to do with the hotel lobby forcing this through. In short some powerful corporate interests wrote those laws, and since when a corporations LEFTISTS.
Airbnb is quite popular in NYC, so certainly this was not by public demand. Uber and Lyft are completely legal in NYC, and there's legislation pending to make them legal throughout NYS.
This has nothing to do with the left, it has to do with the hotel lobby forcing this through. In short some powerful corporate interests wrote those laws, and since when a corporations LEFTISTS.
Airbnb is quite popular in NYC, so certainly this was not by public demand. Uber and Lyft are completely legal in NYC, and there's legislation pending to make them legal throughout NYS.
These kinds of laws have become representative of leftist policies and politics, which have not taken ahold in conservative cities and states as the people/politicians don't stand for it (certainly not to the same level). Again, you need only look to where such restrictions on companies like UBER and Airbnb area being put into place to see the reality of the matter. While conservative states/cities have their own problems (and you're more than free to criticize them), they have generally not been bought by corporate interests on this and similar issues. No, this is a problem for leftist politicians controlling leftist cities and states.
And corporations will try to buy whichever side they can, whether left or right (in this case and on this issue, they have bought--wholesale--the left). Just ask Hillary Clinton and/or take a look at her donor list to get an idea of how corporate interests work.
These kinds of laws have become representative of leftist policies and politics, which have not taken ahold in conservative cities and states as the people/politicians don't stand for it (certainly not to the same level). Again, you need only look to where such restrictions on companies like UBER and Airbnb area being put into place to see the reality of the matter. While conservative states/cities have their own problems (and you're more than free to criticize them), they have generally not been bought by corporate interests on this and similar issues. No, this is a problem for leftist politicians controlling leftist cities and states.
And corporations will try to buy whichever side they can, whether left or right (in this case and on this issue, they have bought--wholesale--the left). Just ask Hillary Clinton and/or take a look at her donor list.
Yes of course conservative states are bought by corporate interests. The auto industry (foreign steelmakers) has tremendous clout in states like Alabama that changed their laws and even gave these companies huge tax credits, as well as infrastructural improvements to come to these states. What a ridiculous claim you've made. Money talks and bull$hit walks and this is the entire political spectrum, and this is around the world.
Probably in this election year though, it maybe certain politicians in places like NYC and SF wanted to claim to be doing whatever for the poor people (allegedly Airbnb displaces poor tenants) and they maybe passing certain laws to attempt to claim they have done whatever for their base. Added to that they were bought by the hotel lobby. The problem is that these laws cannot hold up in court, and Airbnb and Uber have substantially grown in clout and money (and large numbers of voters use them at some point).
But none of this has ANYTHING to do with the public, who is clearly voting with their dollars and supporting Airbnb and Uber.
Yes of course conservative states are bought by corporate interests. The auto industry (foreign steelmakers) has tremendous clout in states like Alabama that changed their laws and even gave these companies huge tax credits, as well as infrastructural improvements to come to these states. What a ridiculous claim you've made. Money talks and bull$hit walks and this is the entire political spectrum, and this is around the world.
Probably in this election year though, it maybe certain politicians in places like NYC and SF wanted to claim to be doing whatever for the poor people (allegedly Airbnb displaces poor tenants) and they maybe passing certain laws to attempt to claim they have done whatever for their base. Added to that they were bought by the hotel lobby. The problem is that these laws cannot hold up in court, and Airbnb and Uber have substantially grown in clout and money (and large numbers of voters use them at some point).
But none of this has ANYTHING to do with the public, who is clearly voting with their dollars and supporting Airbnb and Uber.
These laws can't be upheld according to whom? I haven't seen a solid constitutional argument against these laws and have already mentioned the significance (or insignificance) of settlement talks.
And what is ridiculous is that you can't see that these restrictions on companies like UBER and Airbnb are overwhelmingly passing in leftist cities and states/by leftist politicians, not in conservative cities and states, which makes this issue representative among leftist political causes.
Yes, "money talks and bull$hit walks" and this is true regardless of political affiliation. But, in this particular case, lobbyists have generally only been able to buy over leftist politicians in leftists cities and states. What's so difficult to understand about that? No one claimed that corruption or being susceptible to corporate influence is a leftist issue alone. In this particular case, however, we are seeing such restrictions being put into place OVERWHELMINGLY in leftist areas and by leftist politicians. Again, I have no problem if you want to discuss other instances where lobbyists have bought conservative politicians to push policy in conservative states, but that is not the topic at hand specifically.
Much like influence peddling/lobbying by the teacher's unions have helped make opposition to tenure reform/other education reform a leftist issue, so has the ability of the hotel lobby to influence leftist politicians on this issue made it a leftist issue.
These laws can't be upheld according to whom? I haven't seen a solid constitutional argument against these laws and have already mentioned the significance (or insignificance) of settlement talks.
And what is ridiculous is that you can't see that these restrictions on companies like UBER and Airbnb are overwhelmingly passing in leftist cities and states/by leftist politicians, not in conservative cities and states, which makes this issue representative among leftist political causes.
Yes, "money talks and bull$hit walks" and this is true regardless of political affiliation. But, in this particular case, lobbyists have generally only been able to buy over leftist politicians in leftists cities and states. What's so difficult to understand about that? No one claimed that corruption or being susceptible to corporate influence is a leftist issue alone. In this particular case, however, we are seeing such restrictions being put into place OVERWHELMINGLY in leftist areas and by leftist politicians. Again, I have no problem if you want to discuss other instances where lobbyists have bought conservative politicians to push policy in conservative states, but that is not the topic at hand specifically.
Much like influence peddling/lobbying by the teacher's unions have helped make opposition to tenure reform/other education reform a leftist issue, so has the ability of the hotel lobby to influence leftist politicians on this issue made it a leftist issue.
There is nothing to understand because you are distorting an issue.
No city or state government actually has the power to ban something like Airbnb or Uber. The federal government regulates interstate commerce as per the constitution and Airbnb is clearly interstate commerce.
In order to go on rants that enable you to demonize certain parts of the country as leftist, you ignore that Airbnb has already sued NYC and NYS and that the city and state are already in talks with them. So the matter will be resolved and DROPPED.
As for Uber, Uber has no real restrictions anywhere, as Uber lawyers are quite successful in dealing with governments, and have made Uber legal in many jurisdictions than banned them.
Btw, Alabama, a conservative state, had banned Uber. Uber recently became LEGAL there though.
New Orleans is in Louisiana, a conservative state, and there were indeed attempts to restrict Airbnb.
The entire matter is whatever, as Airbnb and Uber know very well how to take care of themselves and they don't need an armchair "conservative" defender.
Still not innovative. The Airbnb app is very innovative and flexible as any home can be an Airbnb anywhere, as opposed to hotels which tend to be only in certain areas.
Its just a website. It is a middle man. Airbnb is no different from orbitz, or whatever except it wont stop people from breaking the laws or municipal ordnances. You can call that innovation if you like.
If short term rentals laws are changed even everywhere, then you can bet Expedia, Priceline can easily and simply add another section to their services.
I hope AirBnB wins. New York imposing these regulations under the guise that AirBnB is exacerbating the homeless crisis is just... rich. Since the government itself does more to exacerbate the homeless crisis than AirBnB could ever dream to
F the law. It's only "law" because it benefits the 0.1%.
If short term rentals become legal in NYC, who do you think be benefitting? You think the tenants will? The landlords will be the ones taking advantage because leases still dont allow for such a thing. The landlords will simply stop renting to people, or they will charge then the appropriate price point, which will most likely be higher than it is now.
owning slaves was once legal, doesn't mean that law was right either
This short term rental issue is a far cry from civil rights violations, and crimes against humanity though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
