This will inhibit mobility and hurt newcomers to the city, especially in the young technology/creative classes. But what sort of politician would actually care, as long as they're not politically active in our jurisdiction yet, am I right?
This will inhibit mobility and hurt newcomers to the city, especially in the young technology/creative classes. But what sort of politician would actually care, as long as they're not politically active in our jurisdiction yet, am I right?
I successfully moved to a number of different cities with neither money nor job prospects. It involved using the ancient human rituals of "using a telephone", "riding the bus", "speaking with other persons" and "walking around".
In the process I had to deal with some minor inconveniences and sometimes things didn't go exactly the way I wanted. The horror!
Can't you just understand: what you're advocating is pretty much legal torture of high-income Americans on a site about Web 2.0 startups?!?!? /s
I agree that it limits mobility but the law also protects residents from constant, disruptive behavior from serial short-term renters.
I have never lived near a serial short-term rental, but I imagine I would dislike it if I lived next door to one.
But that doesn't mean that an unrestricted free-for-all is the only possible alternative.