Tipping point: resistance against overtourism is now so fierce, direct action by City
Nov 25th, 2018, 09:45 AM
#61
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nov 25th, 2018, 11:04 AM
#62
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Our former city attorney (who now works for Airbnb and was probably receiving money from them when he worked for the city)"
...Once again you have no idea what you are talking about."...
Which part are you talking about? The part where it seems you suggested, without offering any evidence, that your former city attorney was essentially getting bribed? Or the part where you forgot to mention that 62,000 of your neighbors do not want proposed restrictions on short term rental properties? Or the part where Palm Springs overwhelmingly voted against such restrictions?
Or is it this part from the San Diego Union Tribune or is this fake news?
“We’re standing up for the thousands of middle class San Diegans who welcome tens of thousands of visitors each year,” said Laura Spanjian, Airbnb’s Public Policy Director for San Diego. “Together, we must find a better way to regulate short term rentals other than a ban.”
The referendum petition’s “statement of reasons,” though, is signed by Councilman Scott Sherman, who voted against the new regulations last week and has been especially vocal in his opposition, going so far as to call on Mission Beach rental hosts to sue the city.
“The main reason I wanted to sign this is I feel the city is in a terrible legal bind with the decision we made,” Sherman said. “The city has been allowing short-term rentals for quite a long time and collecting transient occupancy fees, and with a stroke of the pen we’re saying that they’re now no longer allowed. If this were to go to court, we could end up having to come up with a whole bunch of money for taking people’s property, so it’s a property rights issue.”
All I am saying is that the issue is not so simple legally or politically. And, unlike you, I am not taking a position.
...Once again you have no idea what you are talking about."...
Which part are you talking about? The part where it seems you suggested, without offering any evidence, that your former city attorney was essentially getting bribed? Or the part where you forgot to mention that 62,000 of your neighbors do not want proposed restrictions on short term rental properties? Or the part where Palm Springs overwhelmingly voted against such restrictions?
Or is it this part from the San Diego Union Tribune or is this fake news?
“We’re standing up for the thousands of middle class San Diegans who welcome tens of thousands of visitors each year,” said Laura Spanjian, Airbnb’s Public Policy Director for San Diego. “Together, we must find a better way to regulate short term rentals other than a ban.”
The referendum petition’s “statement of reasons,” though, is signed by Councilman Scott Sherman, who voted against the new regulations last week and has been especially vocal in his opposition, going so far as to call on Mission Beach rental hosts to sue the city.
“The main reason I wanted to sign this is I feel the city is in a terrible legal bind with the decision we made,” Sherman said. “The city has been allowing short-term rentals for quite a long time and collecting transient occupancy fees, and with a stroke of the pen we’re saying that they’re now no longer allowed. If this were to go to court, we could end up having to come up with a whole bunch of money for taking people’s property, so it’s a property rights issue.”
All I am saying is that the issue is not so simple legally or politically. And, unlike you, I am not taking a position.
Nov 25th, 2018, 01:20 PM
#64
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott Sherman's family owns (by some estimates) around 60 STVR's and when I have attended City Council meetings he supported NO regulations on STVR which is why he wanted to rescind the Council's ban when he voted against the compromise bill the first time and has consistenly votes to oppose any rules that regulate STVR's at all.
When the City Council voted to approve this compromise bill that allowed STVR's the anti STRV crowd (SSDN) agreed that it wasn't right that we had to give up what the City Attorney said is our right by law to outlaw STVR because they violate zoning laws. However, SSDN agreed to the compromise which allowed (and I'm not being specific because it is long and complicated). However, compromise was not in AirBnB's vocabulary - it had to be that they are allowed 100% access to all communities to have Short Term Vacation Rentals everywhere all the time.
So they got an 62,000 signatures to put it on the ballot. 62,000 out of 1.3 million people. It didn't mean they approved or disapproved - just that they agreed it could go to a city wide vote. And afterwards the city council and city attorney's office got numerous complaints that Airbnb was lying to people about what they were signing.
So rather than have a city wide vote the City Council voted to rescind the compromise bill. Now we are back to square one. STVR's are illegal in residentially zoned neighborhoods but violations are not enforced which is what Scot Sherman has wanted all along.
It isn't really something you know much about as you don't live here, don't participate in City Council meetings, haven't spoken to lawyers or City attorneys.
When the City Council voted to approve this compromise bill that allowed STVR's the anti STRV crowd (SSDN) agreed that it wasn't right that we had to give up what the City Attorney said is our right by law to outlaw STVR because they violate zoning laws. However, SSDN agreed to the compromise which allowed (and I'm not being specific because it is long and complicated). However, compromise was not in AirBnB's vocabulary - it had to be that they are allowed 100% access to all communities to have Short Term Vacation Rentals everywhere all the time.
So they got an 62,000 signatures to put it on the ballot. 62,000 out of 1.3 million people. It didn't mean they approved or disapproved - just that they agreed it could go to a city wide vote. And afterwards the city council and city attorney's office got numerous complaints that Airbnb was lying to people about what they were signing.
So rather than have a city wide vote the City Council voted to rescind the compromise bill. Now we are back to square one. STVR's are illegal in residentially zoned neighborhoods but violations are not enforced which is what Scot Sherman has wanted all along.
It isn't really something you know much about as you don't live here, don't participate in City Council meetings, haven't spoken to lawyers or City attorneys.
Last edited by nanabee; Nov 25th, 2018 at 01:47 PM.
Nov 25th, 2018, 01:22 PM
#65
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>The part where it seems you suggested, without offering any evidence, that your former city attorney was essentially getting bribed?>
Not bribed but on the payroll (as he has said publicly) of Airbnb.
Not bribed but on the payroll (as he has said publicly) of Airbnb.
Nov 25th, 2018, 01:25 PM
#66
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by nanabee; Nov 25th, 2018 at 01:40 PM.
Nov 25th, 2018, 01:45 PM
#67
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The topic is over tourism and why do poorer travelers have to be the first to go - why not cruise ships - why are airbnb users targeted - why not a reduction across the board in all hotels? Now the housing stock is a different issue that I support as posted above but as for over tourism - what does it have to do with that? Maybe there should be a number of affordable hotels/hostels next to the Hiltons?
Over tourism has been rife in Amsterdam those in the know say for much longer than airbnb has been around.
Airbnb has added to overtourism by providing not only more tourist beds but also more affordable - so yes crack down on illegal Airbnbs - but also crack down on hotel expansion at every level,including cruise ships, and providing more affordable tourist lodging.
But don't make airbnb a boogie man for causing over tourism,but rather, if only the original idea of airbnb - locals renting out rooms in their domiciles - was allowed local folks could perhaps more afford to stay in their homes perhaps in areas where housing prices are soaring - for lots of reasons not just airbnb.
NOT ONLY THE WEALTHY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SLEEP IN AMSTERDAM!
Over tourism has been rife in Amsterdam those in the know say for much longer than airbnb has been around.
Airbnb has added to overtourism by providing not only more tourist beds but also more affordable - so yes crack down on illegal Airbnbs - but also crack down on hotel expansion at every level,including cruise ships, and providing more affordable tourist lodging.
But don't make airbnb a boogie man for causing over tourism,but rather, if only the original idea of airbnb - locals renting out rooms in their domiciles - was allowed local folks could perhaps more afford to stay in their homes perhaps in areas where housing prices are soaring - for lots of reasons not just airbnb.
NOT ONLY THE WEALTHY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SLEEP IN AMSTERDAM!
Nov 25th, 2018, 01:54 PM
#68
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please read carefully;
What I am opposed to is the proliferation of mini hotels in residentially zoned neighborhoods. These homes are purchased by investors and rented out year round housing transient occupants for the purpose of running a business in an area where businesses and hotels are not permitted.
I am opposed to our city council supporting this and not enforcing the current zoning laws in residential neighborhoods.
I am not opposed to: Hotels, cruise ships, AND LOCALS RENTING OUT A ROOM IN THEIR HOMES WHERE THEY ALSO LIVE,
and a homeowner who has a converted garage, granny flat, or anything at all that can accommodate vacation renters is fine and legal, a homeowner who rents out their house for a week or two in the summer while they are gone, or any combination of things where the homeowner living on the property is involved.
What I am opposed to is the proliferation of mini hotels in residentially zoned neighborhoods. These homes are purchased by investors and rented out year round housing transient occupants for the purpose of running a business in an area where businesses and hotels are not permitted.
I am opposed to our city council supporting this and not enforcing the current zoning laws in residential neighborhoods.
I am not opposed to: Hotels, cruise ships, AND LOCALS RENTING OUT A ROOM IN THEIR HOMES WHERE THEY ALSO LIVE,
and a homeowner who has a converted garage, granny flat, or anything at all that can accommodate vacation renters is fine and legal, a homeowner who rents out their house for a week or two in the summer while they are gone, or any combination of things where the homeowner living on the property is involved.
Last edited by nanabee; Nov 25th, 2018 at 01:57 PM.
Nov 25th, 2018, 01:56 PM
#69
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% agree with nanabee1
Nov 25th, 2018, 06:44 PM
#71
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is breaking unenforced local laws moral?"
Depends on the law. Is it archaic, like the many silly laws still on the books all over America? Is it constitutional (state or federal)? Is it vague and possibly open to varying interpretations? Why else is it not being enforced? Stating that it is not being enforced due to corruption, as Nanabee suggests, can be a possible answer, but corruption is eventually caught. Her claim that the city attorney (still a practicing attorney) was being paid a salary from airbnb while also working as the city attorney is a suspect claim and seems outrageous on its face, but I will accept that once she provides the news clip on that.
"Is facilitating the breaking of unenforced local laws socially beneficial? "
Again, it depends on the law and on your definition of what is “socially beneficial.” Although I don’t have a dog in this hunt, some might argue that there are economic benefits from short term vacation rentals and that would be socially beneficial. Others might argue that just the ability to enjoy a vacation rental, however brief, that is probably unaffordable to own or rent long term for them, would be a social benefit to them. If there is a referendum vote, the local people will determine if it is beneficial to them or not. Despite Nanabee’s inference that the petition signatures amount to little, I am sure local officials have noticed the sheer numbers. There are less than 770,000 registered voters in San Diego. In locall elections, you can expect 28-40% participation or 220,000-300,000 votes. Although petitions don’t always fully tell the tale and sometimes come from people not fully educated on the issues (but many voters vote without being fully educated), I also know that it is not easy to get people to sign their names on almost anything today. Suffice it to say that the city council cannot ignore the 62,000 signatures on these petitions.
Depends on the law. Is it archaic, like the many silly laws still on the books all over America? Is it constitutional (state or federal)? Is it vague and possibly open to varying interpretations? Why else is it not being enforced? Stating that it is not being enforced due to corruption, as Nanabee suggests, can be a possible answer, but corruption is eventually caught. Her claim that the city attorney (still a practicing attorney) was being paid a salary from airbnb while also working as the city attorney is a suspect claim and seems outrageous on its face, but I will accept that once she provides the news clip on that.
"Is facilitating the breaking of unenforced local laws socially beneficial? "
Again, it depends on the law and on your definition of what is “socially beneficial.” Although I don’t have a dog in this hunt, some might argue that there are economic benefits from short term vacation rentals and that would be socially beneficial. Others might argue that just the ability to enjoy a vacation rental, however brief, that is probably unaffordable to own or rent long term for them, would be a social benefit to them. If there is a referendum vote, the local people will determine if it is beneficial to them or not. Despite Nanabee’s inference that the petition signatures amount to little, I am sure local officials have noticed the sheer numbers. There are less than 770,000 registered voters in San Diego. In locall elections, you can expect 28-40% participation or 220,000-300,000 votes. Although petitions don’t always fully tell the tale and sometimes come from people not fully educated on the issues (but many voters vote without being fully educated), I also know that it is not easy to get people to sign their names on almost anything today. Suffice it to say that the city council cannot ignore the 62,000 signatures on these petitions.
Nov 25th, 2018, 06:58 PM
#72
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Please read carefully”
Should we all preface our posts this way?
“I am not opposed to: Hotels, cruise ships….”
Remember this thread is about over-tourism. The OP mentioned Amsterdam where 10 million of the 20 million annual visitors are day-trippers (like from cruise ships you favor); maybe another several million people each year just from NEW hotel rooms being built and you seem to favor that; and just a million or so from short term vacation rentals that you strenuously object to. There are plenty of residents in Amsterdam and elsewhere impacted by over-tourism, but you apparently don’t care about that?
And did you also know from your local newspaper:
“No matter what regulations emerge from the ongoing dispute, the California Coastal Commission will have to weigh in. It has historically opposed rules that overly restrict vacation rentals, arguing that they provide access to the coast by offering a lower cost overnight lodging alternative to pricier hotels.”
Do I hear another argument for short term vacation rentals being socially beneficial?
Should we all preface our posts this way?
“I am not opposed to: Hotels, cruise ships….”
Remember this thread is about over-tourism. The OP mentioned Amsterdam where 10 million of the 20 million annual visitors are day-trippers (like from cruise ships you favor); maybe another several million people each year just from NEW hotel rooms being built and you seem to favor that; and just a million or so from short term vacation rentals that you strenuously object to. There are plenty of residents in Amsterdam and elsewhere impacted by over-tourism, but you apparently don’t care about that?
And did you also know from your local newspaper:
“No matter what regulations emerge from the ongoing dispute, the California Coastal Commission will have to weigh in. It has historically opposed rules that overly restrict vacation rentals, arguing that they provide access to the coast by offering a lower cost overnight lodging alternative to pricier hotels.”
Do I hear another argument for short term vacation rentals being socially beneficial?
Nov 26th, 2018, 02:25 AM
#73
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirB&B could (and should, in their own interest) restrict people from offering more than, say, ten different units. This would leave space for the small owner who's trying to make a little extra cash, but eliminate the people who are trying to operate hotels without regard to zoning and safety regulations. It is these mega owners who get people riled up, which is why AirB&B should rein them in. Of course, those who want to play the system could set up a network of dummy owners, but AirB&B surely knows how to unmask them, if they wanted to.
There are of course many corporations jumping on the profit train, and of course there is always a local lobby of people who profit from mass tourism and don't want any regulation of it. They usually don't live in the neighborhoods that are being ruined and they don't care if the city's core is becoming a sort of modern Potemkin tourist village. AirB&B is the public symbol of the phenomenon, just as Coca-Cola and McDonalds are public symbols of globalized agrobusiness. Pepsi and Burger King are no more virtuous, but their names haven't become anathema in the same way.
There are of course many corporations jumping on the profit train, and of course there is always a local lobby of people who profit from mass tourism and don't want any regulation of it. They usually don't live in the neighborhoods that are being ruined and they don't care if the city's core is becoming a sort of modern Potemkin tourist village. AirB&B is the public symbol of the phenomenon, just as Coca-Cola and McDonalds are public symbols of globalized agrobusiness. Pepsi and Burger King are no more virtuous, but their names haven't become anathema in the same way.
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:18 AM
#74
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I support a regulated system to find a balance between tourist accomodations and residential neighborhoods, all this commotion about AirBnB strikes me a little too short-sighted.
IMO, the first step that led to a lack in affordable housing for the not so rich and famous has been and still is the ongoing gentrification of inner city neighborhoods which formerly had no appeal for more affluent renters or buyers.
I will not disagree that the (legal or illegal) conversion of apartments into short-term rentals is a contributing factor. And that there are neighborhoods where it is a major factor.
Nevertheless, I doubt that AirBnB or similar apartments currently not available on the regular housing market will become "affordable" accomodations for people with less income. If AirBnB and similar are banned tomorrow, the owners of those buildings will probably convert them into for sale/for rent upscale apartments.
After all, AirBnBs usually do not exist (in that multitude) in areas where there was no demand.
And no ban on short-term rentals will remove the general rise in demand for houses and apartments in those areas.
Take Barcelona, for example. Before the tourist boom after the Olympic Games, you could find low rent (and low quality) housing in Barceloneta and Raval (and other areas).
Then, Barceloneta got renovated and "upgraded". Now, the Raval (one "no go area" until a few years ago) is undergoing the same development.
It's not as some decades ago when "rich people" automatically looked for green and leafy bungalows in the affluent neighborhoods. They compete with the lower classes for housing in formerly run-down or otherwise lacking neighborhoods.
Saying that tough restrictions on AirBnBs will free those apartments for the less affluent underestimates those other, much more serious factors, IMO.
For city governments and officials it is much more convenient, though, to point the finger at the big evil American monster company that is gobbling up housing than to ask themselves what they had been doing in the last decade?
If they considered it a public service to make affordable housing for low-income families availably, why did they sell rent-control apartment buildings without any safeguards or restrictions? Why didn't they invest taxpayers' money in public housing estates?
IMO, the first step that led to a lack in affordable housing for the not so rich and famous has been and still is the ongoing gentrification of inner city neighborhoods which formerly had no appeal for more affluent renters or buyers.
I will not disagree that the (legal or illegal) conversion of apartments into short-term rentals is a contributing factor. And that there are neighborhoods where it is a major factor.
Nevertheless, I doubt that AirBnB or similar apartments currently not available on the regular housing market will become "affordable" accomodations for people with less income. If AirBnB and similar are banned tomorrow, the owners of those buildings will probably convert them into for sale/for rent upscale apartments.
After all, AirBnBs usually do not exist (in that multitude) in areas where there was no demand.
And no ban on short-term rentals will remove the general rise in demand for houses and apartments in those areas.
Take Barcelona, for example. Before the tourist boom after the Olympic Games, you could find low rent (and low quality) housing in Barceloneta and Raval (and other areas).
Then, Barceloneta got renovated and "upgraded". Now, the Raval (one "no go area" until a few years ago) is undergoing the same development.
It's not as some decades ago when "rich people" automatically looked for green and leafy bungalows in the affluent neighborhoods. They compete with the lower classes for housing in formerly run-down or otherwise lacking neighborhoods.
Saying that tough restrictions on AirBnBs will free those apartments for the less affluent underestimates those other, much more serious factors, IMO.
For city governments and officials it is much more convenient, though, to point the finger at the big evil American monster company that is gobbling up housing than to ask themselves what they had been doing in the last decade?
If they considered it a public service to make affordable housing for low-income families availably, why did they sell rent-control apartment buildings without any safeguards or restrictions? Why didn't they invest taxpayers' money in public housing estates?
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:28 AM
#75
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Belgium Airbnb has to provide the authorities with the addresses of properties, so that they can be checked for fire safety and other requirements. They largely refuse to do this.
There was a spot check of about 100 properties recently; half of them had to close because they did not comply with safety rules. These were properties that were known to the authorities. But many are not checked at all because Airbnb does not give out the information.
The requirements include a liability insurance, fire alarms, notices informing tenants of exits in case of fire (in 4 languages) and a fire safety statement provided by the fire department. Without this, the property is illegal for rental.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about this, fact is that Airbnb consistently refuses to apply local rules and regulations in many countries.
There was a spot check of about 100 properties recently; half of them had to close because they did not comply with safety rules. These were properties that were known to the authorities. But many are not checked at all because Airbnb does not give out the information.
The requirements include a liability insurance, fire alarms, notices informing tenants of exits in case of fire (in 4 languages) and a fire safety statement provided by the fire department. Without this, the property is illegal for rental.
You can argue until you are blue in the face about this, fact is that Airbnb consistently refuses to apply local rules and regulations in many countries.
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:30 AM
#76
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirB&B could (and should, in their own interest) restrict people from offering more than, say, ten different units. This would leave space for the small owner who's trying to make a little extra cash, but eliminate the people who are trying to operate hotels without regard to zoning and safety regulations. It is these mega owners who get people riled up, which is why AirB&B should rein them in. Of course, those who want to play the system could set up a network of dummy owners, but AirB&B surely knows how to unmask them, if they wanted to.
There are of course many corporations jumping on the profit train, and of course there is always a local lobby of people who profit from mass tourism and don't want any regulation of it. They usually don't live in the neighborhoods that are being ruined and they don't care if the city's core is becoming a sort of modern Potemkin tourist village. AirB&B is the public symbol of the phenomenon, just as Coca-Cola and McDonalds are public symbols of globalized agrobusiness. Pepsi and Burger King are no more virtuous, but their names haven't become anathema in the same way.
There are of course many corporations jumping on the profit train, and of course there is always a local lobby of people who profit from mass tourism and don't want any regulation of it. They usually don't live in the neighborhoods that are being ruined and they don't care if the city's core is becoming a sort of modern Potemkin tourist village. AirB&B is the public symbol of the phenomenon, just as Coca-Cola and McDonalds are public symbols of globalized agrobusiness. Pepsi and Burger King are no more virtuous, but their names haven't become anathema in the same way.
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:34 AM
#77
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Please read carefully”
Should we all preface our posts this way?
“I am not opposed to: Hotels, cruise ships….”
Remember this thread is about over-tourism. The OP mentioned Amsterdam where 10 million of the 20 million annual visitors are day-trippers (like from cruise ships you favor); maybe another several million people each year just from NEW hotel rooms being built and you seem to favor that; and just a million or so from short term vacation rentals that you strenuously object to. There are plenty of residents in Amsterdam and elsewhere impacted by over-tourism, but you apparently don’t care about that?
And did you also know from your local newspaper:
“No matter what regulations emerge from the ongoing dispute, the California Coastal Commission will have to weigh in. It has historically opposed rules that overly restrict vacation rentals, arguing that they provide access to the coast by offering a lower cost overnight lodging alternative to pricier hotels.”
Do I hear another argument for short term vacation rentals being socially beneficial?
Should we all preface our posts this way?
“I am not opposed to: Hotels, cruise ships….”
Remember this thread is about over-tourism. The OP mentioned Amsterdam where 10 million of the 20 million annual visitors are day-trippers (like from cruise ships you favor); maybe another several million people each year just from NEW hotel rooms being built and you seem to favor that; and just a million or so from short term vacation rentals that you strenuously object to. There are plenty of residents in Amsterdam and elsewhere impacted by over-tourism, but you apparently don’t care about that?
And did you also know from your local newspaper:
“No matter what regulations emerge from the ongoing dispute, the California Coastal Commission will have to weigh in. It has historically opposed rules that overly restrict vacation rentals, arguing that they provide access to the coast by offering a lower cost overnight lodging alternative to pricier hotels.”
Do I hear another argument for short term vacation rentals being socially beneficial?
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:37 AM
#78
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'If they considered it a public service to make affordable housing for low-income families availably, why did they sell rent-control apartment buildings without any safeguards or restrictions?"
Because Airbnb did not exist 10 years ago. And there are already rules about subletting rent-controlled housing. Airbnb has made it easy for people to do this; no need to place adverts or involve estate agents, and Airbnb can be counted on not to give your information out to the authorities. They are in fact selling an illegal product, and arguing that it is not their place to ensure that what they sell is legal. See my comment about Belgium, where they are letting places without fire safety statements, which is illegal.
Because Airbnb did not exist 10 years ago. And there are already rules about subletting rent-controlled housing. Airbnb has made it easy for people to do this; no need to place adverts or involve estate agents, and Airbnb can be counted on not to give your information out to the authorities. They are in fact selling an illegal product, and arguing that it is not their place to ensure that what they sell is legal. See my comment about Belgium, where they are letting places without fire safety statements, which is illegal.
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:38 AM
#79
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I support a regulated system to find a balance between tourist accomodations and residential neighborhoods, all this commotion about AirBnB strikes me a little too short-sighted.
IMO, the first step that led to a lack in affordable housing for the not so rich and famous has been and still is the ongoing gentrification of inner city neighborhoods which formerly had no appeal for more affluent renters or buyers.
I will not disagree that the (legal or illegal) conversion of apartments into short-term rentals is a contributing factor. And that there are neighborhoods where it is a major factor.
Nevertheless, I doubt that AirBnB or similar apartments currently not available on the regular housing market will become "affordable" accomodations for people with less income. If AirBnB and similar are banned tomorrow, the owners of those buildings will probably convert them into for sale/for rent upscale apartments.
After all, AirBnBs usually do not exist (in that multitude) in areas where there was no demand.
And no ban on short-term rentals will remove the general rise in demand for houses and apartments in those areas.
Take Barcelona, for example. Before the tourist boom after the Olympic Games, you could find low rent (and low quality) housing in Barceloneta and Raval (and other areas).
Then, Barceloneta got renovated and "upgraded". Now, the Raval (one "no go area" until a few years ago) is undergoing the same development.
It's not as some decades ago when "rich people" automatically looked for green and leafy bungalows in the affluent neighborhoods. They compete with the lower classes for housing in formerly run-down or otherwise lacking neighborhoods.
Saying that tough restrictions on AirBnBs will free those apartments for the less affluent underestimates those other, much more serious factors, IMO.
For city governments and officials it is much more convenient, though, to point the finger at the big evil American monster company that is gobbling up housing than to ask themselves what they had been doing in the last decade?
If they considered it a public service to make affordable housing for low-income families availably, why did they sell rent-control apartment buildings without any safeguards or restrictions? Why didn't they invest taxpayers' money in public housing estates?
IMO, the first step that led to a lack in affordable housing for the not so rich and famous has been and still is the ongoing gentrification of inner city neighborhoods which formerly had no appeal for more affluent renters or buyers.
I will not disagree that the (legal or illegal) conversion of apartments into short-term rentals is a contributing factor. And that there are neighborhoods where it is a major factor.
Nevertheless, I doubt that AirBnB or similar apartments currently not available on the regular housing market will become "affordable" accomodations for people with less income. If AirBnB and similar are banned tomorrow, the owners of those buildings will probably convert them into for sale/for rent upscale apartments.
After all, AirBnBs usually do not exist (in that multitude) in areas where there was no demand.
And no ban on short-term rentals will remove the general rise in demand for houses and apartments in those areas.
Take Barcelona, for example. Before the tourist boom after the Olympic Games, you could find low rent (and low quality) housing in Barceloneta and Raval (and other areas).
Then, Barceloneta got renovated and "upgraded". Now, the Raval (one "no go area" until a few years ago) is undergoing the same development.
It's not as some decades ago when "rich people" automatically looked for green and leafy bungalows in the affluent neighborhoods. They compete with the lower classes for housing in formerly run-down or otherwise lacking neighborhoods.
Saying that tough restrictions on AirBnBs will free those apartments for the less affluent underestimates those other, much more serious factors, IMO.
For city governments and officials it is much more convenient, though, to point the finger at the big evil American monster company that is gobbling up housing than to ask themselves what they had been doing in the last decade?
If they considered it a public service to make affordable housing for low-income families availably, why did they sell rent-control apartment buildings without any safeguards or restrictions? Why didn't they invest taxpayers' money in public housing estates?
Nov 26th, 2018, 03:39 AM
#80
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,839
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other news, the big IAMSTERDAM sign that marred the façade of the Rijksmuseum will be gone beginning of december. No more selfies.
