Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jormundir | Hacker News Reader

Why?

Your "shoulds" sound like arbitrary rules to make some people comfortable at other peoples' expense.

The flip side is also true, the lack of "arbitrary" rules are sometimes making airbnb guests comfortable at the expense of neighbors/communities.

Isn't it the case he's making that there should be sensible middle ground?

At some point, we're going to need to decide what's more important: tech startup revenue/profits or quality of life.

Unfortunately there are two different concepts of "we" at play. The "we" who get pushed out of our neighborhoods by tourism-driven rent increases will most certainly not be the "we" who decide what's more important.

The "we" who votes is most important.

What about the "we" who like to travel, stay in nice apartments, and rent out their apartment while we're gone (because we're not plutocrats)?

Vote. That's how democracy works. If you lose, you accept your loss.

And when you say "apartment", I'm assuming you mean with permission from your landlord/management company with a lease that doesn't prohibit unapproved sublets, right? Because to do otherwise would violate their property rights.

Travelers can't vote. That's an incredibly reductionist answer.

That's my point; travelers don't get a say in local politics. Its up to the local populace to decide what they want.

> Its up to the local populace to decide what they want.

Thinking that's the solution to every problem is rather naive. For one thing, it's a great way to abuse minorities for the minor benefit of majorities.

More importantly, it ignores the fact that actions can have externalities far beyond a local jurisdiction. Just like a town shouldn't be able to "vote" to rob everyone who drives on their highway (or, more realistically, eliminate air quality controls), neither should it be allowed to have complete control over travel regulations. Travelers might not be a constituent in local elections, but travel and interstate commerce does have key externalities.

Regardless of perception, local politics dictates property use regulations. AirBnB isn't going to up-end that overnight (if ever).

The quality of life of travelers and hosts seems to line up quite nicely with startup revenue.

But will it last as local jurisdictions add short-term rental restrictions? That's the question. Those governments are accountable to their local voters, not AirBnB, and definitely not the travelers who use it.

Too bad. They're probably chasing local optima that are quite different from the global maximum.

It's a debate over the definition of "owning property", which is something that changes frequently over the years. We're always trying to find some sensible middle ground.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com