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.
It'd be really cool if some enterprising, wealthy person of integrity would fund the following study:
1)Locate the home addresses of the people claiming it is wrong to restrict what people do with their (residential) property.
2)Buy the houses on either side of the property (make the current owners an offer they won't refuse).
3)Start doing things with the property because it's THEIR property. Some ideas of things to do:
a)Burn noxious stuff on the stove, fanning the air out the window toward the new neighbor's place.
b)Host large (quiet) parties from 3pm 'til dawn, every day, imposing massive parking problems.
c)Erect big walls on both properties (for privacy), so tall they block the sun for most of the day from the neighbor.
d)Put spotlights on top of the walls that turn on at sunset (in the name of "security"); the wind may "sometimes" move the lights so they shine on the neighbor's property.
e)Have a very loud house alarm for the security of the children, but it sounds off at random times, too. (You need regular, random drill so everyone keeps their emergency response skills sharp! This is earthquake country, after all!)
I wonder if, faced with such a change in their immediate neighborhood, those opponents of reasonable regulation of residential properties would stay opposed to regulation, and suffer the degradation of their quality of life as the price of "freedom." I bet not.
If the answer to "What's a liberal who's been mugged?" is "A conservative," I bet the answer to "What's a libertarian who's new neighbors harm their quality of life?" is either "A homicidal maniac" or "A proponent of regulation." I guess which may depend on their prior level of mental health.
While we can have our suspicions, we may only learn the truth of the matter if someone would fund the study above. It'd be really cool if someone would. :-)
It'd be really cool if some enterprising, wealthy person of integrity would fund the following study:
1)Locate the home addresses of the people claiming it is wrong to restrict what people do with their (residential) property.
2)Buy the houses on either side of the property (make the current owners an offer they won't refuse).
3)Start doing things with the property because it's THEIR property. Some ideas of things to do:
a)Burn noxious stuff on the stove, fanning the air out the window toward the new neighbor's place.
b)Host large (quiet) parties from 3pm 'til dawn, every day, imposing massive parking problems.
c)Erect big walls on both properties (for privacy), so tall they block the sun for most of the day from the neighbor.
d)Put spotlights on top of the walls that turn on at sunset (in the name of "security"); the wind may "sometimes" move the lights so they shine on the neighbor's property.
e)Have a very loud house alarm for the security of the children, but it sounds off at random times, too. (You need regular, random drill so everyone keeps their emergency response skills sharp! This is earthquake country, after all!)
I wonder if, faced with such a change in their immediate neighborhood, those opponents of reasonable regulation of residential properties would stay opposed to regulation, and suffer the degradation of their quality of life as the price of "freedom." I bet not.
If the answer to "What's a liberal who's been mugged?" is "A conservative," I bet the answer to "What's a libertarian who's new neighbors harm their quality of life?" is either "A homicidal maniac" or "A proponent of regulation." I guess which may depend on their prior level of mental health.
While we can have our suspicions, we may only learn the truth of the matter if someone would fund the study above. It'd be really cool if someone would. :-)
So you are comparing letting someone stay at your house for money to having a party all night long. Last time a checked, someone doesn't have rights to street parking and leaving lights on in the evening isnt illegal.
I don't understand why letting someone rent a house temporarily brings out the statist in so many.
You finally said something indisputable! Congrats!
And the first person to resort to digs usually loses the discussion...so also congrats.
I wouldn't be happy if I was a nearby resident, but the bigger question is if the guy basically owes more in back taxes and mortgage payments why he hasn't been foreclosed on? The property seemingly could command enough to at least break even on what's owed.
Sounds like the only reason he's resorting to this option is because he's broke, and can't sell the house with all those added liens on it.
Yes, there are AirBNB horror stories. There are also some Uber/Lyft and GASP! Taxi horror stories too. However, what doesn't make the news are the MILLIONS of completely harmless transactions. AirBNB has had over 10 million guest stays since they started. I've never done it myself, but I know people on both sides who have stayed at a rental and a few couples outside of the Bay Area who rent their place out. The issue you find more often than not is with property owners not vetting the requesting renter well enough before accepting the offer - some people in the Bay Area need the money so badly that they take the risk of someone who is unverified or has no renter rating, and some get burned by it.
And the first person to resort to digs usually loses the discussion...so also congrats.
I wouldn't be happy if I was a nearby resident, but the bigger question is if the guy basically owes more in back taxes and mortgage payments why he hasn't been foreclosed on? The property seemingly could command enough to at least break even on what's owed.
Sounds like the only reason he's resorting to this option is because he's broke, and can't sell the house with all those added liens on it.
Yes, there are AirBNB horror stories. There are also some Uber/Lyft and GASP! Taxi horror stories too. However, what doesn't make the news are the MILLIONS of completely harmless transactions. AirBNB has had over 10 million guest stays since they started. I've never done it myself, but I know people on both sides who have stayed at a rental and a few couples outside of the Bay Area who rent their place out. The issue you find more often than not is with property owners not vetting the requesting renter well enough before accepting the offer - some people in the Bay Area need the money so badly that they take the risk of someone who is unverified or has no renter rating, and some get burned by it.
And now, ServoMiff, something you probably did not expect. An apology! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that dig, but, alas, you are correct, it was wrong. I am sorry.
Now, on to the issue. You are correct that occasional use of something like AirBNB is probably no problem. The problem comes when it is abused. In an earlier thread I sketched out the ease with which this happens and the implications.
My post is Post 7 of the undermining property rights thread. However, the general point probably goes by the name "Tragedy of the Commons." The wikipedia entry on this term
The extremes on the issue of AirBNB are wrong. Those who say it should not be allowed are wrong. Those who say it should not be regulated (or that AirBNB landlords owe nothing to their neighbors) are wrong. But, in today's politics, it seems we are less interested in solving problems than in enjoying the spectacle of fighting about them. As my post to shooting4life contributed to the spectacle, I am doubly sorry.
But, I ask--is shooting4life and others who embrace a "NO Regulation is a Good Regulation" position and a "People Should Be Able To Do Whatever They Want With Their Property" position going to come off that extreme and unsustainable view and join those of us who want to address the issues? In this case, will they join in attempting to address the very real conflict AirBNB poses between TWO different rights--the right of the one who owns Property A and the right of neighbors who obtained nearby properties with a zoned understanding of the area as residential?
And now, ServoMiff, something you probably did not expect. An apology! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that dig, but, alas, you are correct, it was wrong. I am sorry.
Now, on to the issue. You are correct that occasional use of something like AirBNB is probably no problem. The problem comes when it is abused. In an earlier thread I sketched out the ease with which this happens and the implications.
My post is Post 7 of the undermining property rights thread. However, the general point probably goes by the name "Tragedy of the Commons." The wikipedia entry on this term
The extremes on the issue of AirBNB are wrong. Those who say it should not be allowed are wrong. Those who say it should not be regulated (or that AirBNB landlords owe nothing to their neighbors) are wrong. But, in today's politics, it seems we are less interested in solving problems than in enjoying the spectacle of fighting about them. As my post to shooting4life contributed to the spectacle, I am doubly sorry.
But, I ask--is shooting4life and others who embrace a "NO Regulation is a Good Regulation" position and a "People Should Be Able To Do Whatever They Want With Their Property" position going to come off that extreme and unsustainable view and join those of us who want to address the issues? In this case, will they join in attempting to address the very real conflict AirBNB poses between TWO different rights--the right of the one who owns Property A and the right of neighbors who obtained nearby properties with a zoned understanding of the area as residential?
We'll see.
The only difference between holding an event for personal reasons and holding an event for financials gains is the tax revenue the government receives. I could have a large party at my house every weekend if I wanted to, have 60-80 people over every Saturday for college foot ball. This of course would be over before 10 when noise regulations are in affect. But I, as the property owner, have every right to do that and you as my neighbor have no recourse. Now if for that same exact party I charge someone, it should now be illegal according to you.
I choose to side with Liberty, especially when no one is actually being harmed.
Btw, no one has a right to street parking, it is a free for all.
The only difference between holding an event for personal reasons and holding an event for financials gains is the tax revenue the government receives. I could have a large party at my house every weekend if I wanted to, have 60-80 people over every Saturday for college foot ball. This of course would be over before 10 when noise regulations are in affect. But I, as the property owner, have every right to do that and you as my neighbor have no recourse. Now if for that same exact party I charge someone, it should now be illegal according to you.
I choose to side with Liberty, especially when no one is actually being harmed.
Btw, no one has a right to street parking, it is a free for all.
People and property are being harmed, especially quality of life. You want to go live in a slumhood, by all means move there and conduct your airBNB bs and all that goes along with it there. People who own houses in areas where they want decent quality of life should be able to have that without ariBNB riffraff.
And now, ServoMiff, something you probably did not expect. An apology! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that dig, but, alas, you are correct, it was wrong. I am sorry.
Now, on to the issue. You are correct that occasional use of something like AirBNB is probably no problem. The problem comes when it is abused. In an earlier thread I sketched out the ease with which this happens and the implications.
My post is Post 7 of the undermining property rights thread. However, the general point probably goes by the name "Tragedy of the Commons." The wikipedia entry on this term
The extremes on the issue of AirBNB are wrong. Those who say it should not be allowed are wrong. Those who say it should not be regulated (or that AirBNB landlords owe nothing to their neighbors) are wrong. But, in today's politics, it seems we are less interested in solving problems than in enjoying the spectacle of fighting about them. As my post to shooting4life contributed to the spectacle, I am doubly sorry.
But, I ask--is shooting4life and others who embrace a "NO Regulation is a Good Regulation" position and a "People Should Be Able To Do Whatever They Want With Their Property" position going to come off that extreme and unsustainable view and join those of us who want to address the issues? In this case, will they join in attempting to address the very real conflict AirBNB poses between TWO different rights--the right of the one who owns Property A and the right of neighbors who obtained nearby properties with a zoned understanding of the area as residential?
We'll see.
There are issues with AirBNB rentals in SF, but I gather that it's more of a problem that's really only limited to SF for the most part (at least in the US). There's no other city in the US with as much housing pressure currently.
I think the issue with considering legislative action against rental properties here is that it can be used politically as a precedent for financial gain in cities wishing to earn more local revenue elsewhere. In doing so, these politicians (with their usual lack of proper foresight) could cripple rental property owners enough elsewhere to the point that they're not economically viable as an alternative to traditional hotels anymore. It's not likely that any politician would support legislation that paid neighbors only for the "inconvenience" of dealing with more tourists in their neighborhood. One thing SF locals are constantly guilty of are not really thinking things through from the entire picture standpoint, and then are forced to deal with the "law of unintended consequences" to their regulatory action. Prop 48 is a nice example of that.
I'm not sure there's an easy answer (is there ever, though?). I think an issue that's rarely talked about that's almost as bad (if not fundamentally worse) are real estate speculators buying property and letting it sit vacant. There are numerous examples of this happening in SF, but because an empty place doesn't cause a scene, it's not going to get the press.
People and property are being harmed, especially quality of life. You want to go live in a slumhood, by all means move there and conduct your airBNB bs and all that goes along with it there. People who own houses in areas where they want decent quality of life should be able to have that without ariBNB riffraff.
So you are being harmed because the person across the street in the bed is different a few weeks out of the year.
Are you just afraid of being around someone with a different socioeconomic status than you?
If you want to make money with guests, you should invest in purchasing a hotel.
AirBnB is trashy and for sleezeball ghetto people trying to make a buck.
The whole "sharing economy" is just a euphemism for not being regulated properly.
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.
