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.
I just think the fears are way over blown for new business models such as Airbnb or Uber. There is no question they are disruptors and quickly change the dynamic of a market. They are disruptive because of the efficiency, price discovery and the positive consumer experience that is driving their exponential growth. As far as Hotels vs. private home rentals, they are two distinctly different non-competing products with vastly different experiences for the end user. Hotels will sell rooms at the same rate and all their existing benefits for the local economy and profits for their mainland corporate stakeholders will remain the same. Corporations are people as I once heard but not all of them happen to live here. Airbnb is hyper-local in its benefits to a neighborhood. Most of the profits (about 70% before state and fed income tax) go to the local homeowner utilizing Airbnb and remain in the local neighborhood. That same resident might now have an extra $1000 or so in their pocket to patronize local shops and restaurants. In short, incredibly efficient at bringing in new outside money and keeping almost all of the profits in the local neighborhood economy. The state does not have to invest any resources at all and efficiently collects 14.5% of gross.
Some tourists seek out the resort experience and atmosphere, some don't. Why wasn't Waikiki chosen for the Obama's Christmas vacation for the past seven years? They could go anywhere in the world they desire but choose a short term illegal vacation rental in Kailua instead. Personally when traveling, my preference would be to catch an Uber ride from the airport to an Airbnb rental instead of taking a taxi cab to a resort. Technologies that did not even exist ten years ago make it common place now and will only continue to evolve. If you want to understand the experiences of the Hosts and Renters that patronize Airbnb you can go on their website and check out all the comments associated with a property. They tend to comment mostly about enjoying the beach, going on hikes, shopping, experiencing local culture and often praise the hosts for their hospitality and local knowledge. Kind of like, what’s that word, aloha? Hawaii is transient, people come and go, there will always be military, dreamers and others that only last a year or so and neighborhoods are used to new faces. Tourism and tourists specifically are the only thing that makes the lifestyle and opportunity to live here possible. Probably better to be grateful and accommodating rather than shaming people that just want to experience a small sliver of that local lifestyle.
"Fears" are overblown? I would say they are concerns... and they are all very valid concerns.
Again you're completely ignoring the obvious and real negative repercussions that come from having transients in residential neighborhoods. Where is the respect for those residents that want to maintain the character and feel of their residential neighborhoods and buildings? Would you want to live next door to someone that has five or six new short term tenants every single month?
Your attitude is very pro-ownership with zero empathy towards renters. You support Airbnb because it can enrich homeowners at the expense of renter affordability. That you want the increased property values because more rental income can service more debt (thus driving up the demand and therefore cost of housing for everyone). Half of Oahu's residents (the highest in the nation next to NY) are renters; your sympathy for them is lacking.
I tried to explain to you how more money would stay local if we let hoteliers accommodate demand - you ignored that. The special visitor "experience" you speak of comes at the expense of higher cost for renters and unwanted character changes to neighborhoods. To most people, that is an unfair trade-off.
While both Uber and Airbnb are"disruptors", there is really no comparison between the two other than they both use web-based platforms and intimate/individual customer shaming (via driver/property owner reviews of clients) to reach as many potential users as possible.
One thing for certain about the similarity between Airbnb and Uber is that they are very controversial and polarizing business models worldwide. In both these models I personally see a net positive for consumers, providers and the communities that are impacted by their utilization.
Let me just give you a hypothetical for a typical short term rental scenario: An older couple that owns a home in a desirable area want to invite their grown children, extended family and friends to stay in their home on a regular basis. At their home they have a spare bedroom with its own entrance and permitted wetbar. Even though this apt would make for a very nice long term rental for a local resident they want the space kept available, without exception, for those frequent visits by family and friends. Between visits this room goes mostly unused so they decide to rent out part time on Airbnb. They are now able to efficiently schedule guests on precisely the days they want the room made available. The singles and couples that are staying in the room are paying the local owners for the room and have a budget of $200 p/day for eating at neighborhood restaurants, renting sports equipment, shopping for clothes and souvenirs, etc. The home owners are receiving average income of $1500 p/mo, Paying 14.5% get at $217.5 p/mo. After the abnb guests have spent their money in the local neighborhood, the owners also have and extra $1500 per month to spend on home improvements, neighborhood businesses, bills, retirement, etc. And of course you know the money multiplier effect that immediately impacts the entirety of the hyper-local economy. Without renting short term through Airbnb the income and economic benefits from the same underutilized space would be exactly $0. In this common scenario there is not a long-term rental option so it would have absolutely zero impact on housing supply. Win for the home owner, win for the family and friends, win for the airbnb guests, win for the dept of taxation, win for the local economy.
I mentioned in my earlier post that renting out what is effectively a room in a home is going to have less negative repercussions than renting an entire residence. I can clearly see the economic benefit for individuals that would normally keep a room with separate kitchen/kitchenette, bath and entry vacant (and only for their non-paying guests) if Airbnb did not exist. However, the majority of homes rented on Airbnb do not fall under your scenario; the specific scenario you painted is only going to represent a small fraction of all Airbnb rentals. The overwhelming majority of homeowners that have a unit that is feasible and desirable as a separate rental will not have it vacant. Statistics show that the majority of homes rented on Airbnb are entire residences that would normally be rented LONG TERM if it weren't for the opportunity Airbnb offers. There will always be odd situations where the positive can outweigh the negative. But the vast majority of these Airbnb units are homes that would normally be rented to long term residents in the absence of Airbnb et al.
And let's assume the scenario you painted is more realistic than the statistics show... you still have the issue of polarizing neighborhoods where the majority of people would prefer to live among stable, long term tenants over a constant flow of daily and weekly-stay transients; even if there are potential economic benefits to reap.
To me, Uber is simply applying desperately needed increased efficiency and improved customer service to an industry (ride hailing) that has been around forever. Airbnb is far more disruptive with its negative impacts on neighborhoods and housing affordability. The negative impacts are particularly acute in regions with extremely expensive real estate and severe shortages in affordable housing (e.g. HERE). We don't need any more reasons to increase the cost of housing here.
Let me just give you a hypothetical for a typical short term rental scenario: An older couple that owns a home in a desirable area want to invite their grown children, extended family and friends to stay in their home on a regular basis. At their home they have a spare bedroom with its own entrance and permitted wetbar. Even though this apt would make for a very nice long term rental for a local resident they want the space kept available, without exception, for those frequent visits by family and friends. Between visits this room goes mostly unused so they decide to rent out part time on Airbnb. They are now able to efficiently schedule guests on precisely the days they want the room made available. The singles and couples that are staying in the room are paying the local owners for the room and have a budget of $200 p/day for eating at neighborhood restaurants, renting sports equipment, shopping for clothes and souvenirs, etc. The home owners are receiving average income of $1500 p/mo, Paying 14.5% get at $217.5 p/mo.
That might be nice airbnb marketing - but not reality. It is naïve to think very many rentals (likely less than 5%) are the older couple renting out the spare room for extra cash.
I was just thinking it could be a great source of revenue for the state if the bill passed and was expanded to allow for more short term rentals. If one home generates $3000 per/m long term(4.5%get) or $5000 p/m short term at (14.5% get+tat). That's $135 long term vs. $725 short term per mo. $1620 vs. $8700 per year in tax rev. That is a huge difference in tax rev that just one home can make. We are in dire need of infrastructure improvements: Roads, Sewers, Water Supply. Schools need 100 million just for AC, the train will eat up revenue perpetually without any return. Tourism is all we have so we should make the best out of the situation. It is never going back to the way it was.
If it is all about just needing revenue then create two special districts, one in Kuilima and one in Makaha to allow casinos and you can rake in millions and millions in tax dollars.....
That might be nice airbnb marketing - but not reality. It is naïve to think very many rentals (likely less than 5%) are the older couple renting out the spare room for extra cash.
More likely - wealthy person with an extra home.
NO NO NO! Wealthy people dont need riff raff having nocturnal realtions on their bed. AIRbnb works great for those who wannabe Hilton or Marriot.
PS. How much does it cost to open a classrooms windows. I dont recall having air conditioning in my skoolrooms.
If it is all about just needing revenue then create two special districts, one in Kuilima and one in Makaha to allow casinos and you can rake in millions and millions in tax dollars.....
Casino in HI is non-sense. Just coz people go to Vegas doesnt mean it will work here. What you need is to get politicians who can live within their means. Not muumuu wearing bi.t.c.e.s who make city employees do their makakilo homes yardwork.
A group of us actually rented THIS house off VRBO last winter. It was fantastic. Would I rent it again now knowing this? No! We could have gotten asked to leave with no recourse probably (and no place to stay!)
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.
