Why? I have a right to intervene if their behavior affects me (ie. noise) but I certainly don't have a right to decide what my neighbors do.
If my neighbors want to host a swingers' party next door, so long as it's quiet then it's absolutely none of my business. Similarly, if they want to do short-term rentals, so long as noise levels are kept acceptably low I don't see what say I should have in the matter.
The idea that Airbnb is "sharing" is cute, but these are commercial transactions we're talking about, specifically short term lodging rentals. This not a free speech or free association issue as long as that's the case.
Why not just impose a fine for noisy crowds? Problem solved no matter what the cause.
The commercial aspect of it is a red herring, as you'd be equally bothered by someone hosting frequent gatherings for their non-profit group.
Noise complaint is a valid argument up to a certain point. Of course, I don't want anyone to have a concert upstairs.
Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Uber or Airbnb or many of the things they represent. However, we must agree that the ends do not justify the means. This is just one step away from FUD like "Oh, if we have Airbnb we might have {{insert trendy to hate -- black, Hispanic, Arabic, Chinese, Canadian}} people staying over for the weekend next door and who knows what they're going to do to me in my sleep". I think if you subscribe to this idea then we should throw the baby away with the bath water as well. Nobody is allowed to visit anyone in their homes. Absolutely no parties even if you own your home. Only the legal registered occupant may be present at any time (I guess we will add provisions for EMS and law enforcement).
I will agree with you the day I can get a fellow passenger kicked out of a train or an aeroplane for failing to quiet their devil spawn that won't stop wailing for over n hours.
I am not accusing you of malice but please realize that the anti-Airbnb rhetoric is no more of a "grass-roots" movement than the so-called "tea party movement". Yes, there are people with valid concerns. No, they are not the ones driving this train. It appears we share a common goal with "them" but we do not.
A short term rental is residential use, just like a long term rental is residential use. In both cases the property is used by people to live and sleep in.
The question is does local government have the right to regulate the duration of a rental lease?
I would argue it doesn't, and it's a blatant violation of sacred property rights for a government to take that power.
The answer to problems of noise is to enforce noise ordinances. Guests will keep quiet if they are told that the town hands out $500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew.
There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days.
Because as we know, if there's one easy thing to get, it's "pay later" fine money from tourists. And if there's one thing that really sparks police springing into action, it's an urban noise complaint.
> There are simple market and incentive based solutions but so many Americans are so quick to jump on the "Ban! Regulate!" knee jerk train these days.
"$500 fines for violations of decibel levels after curfew" is a regulation - what twisted world is it where something involving the word 'curfew' isn't considered a regulation?
I say enforce the existing, narrowly tailored regulations before creating new, broad ones.
> narrowly tailored ... broad
Obviously enforcement of the existing broad regulations isn't working, so we should create new narrowly tailored ones instead.
This spin-doctoring stuff is fun!
Of course we can fine people that live in other jurisdictions as we do with speeding tickets, and no one is dragged off to jail and fines are not collected on the spot.
Are you aware also that tourists come from outside the country? Speeding tickets aren't particularly enforceable in that case.
I would like to see us come up with creative and tech based solutions for potential problems with vacation rentals, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There are a lot of good coming from vacation rentals, and a lot of people love them.
I am just very much against the idea that if any new thing inconveniences or even potentially inconveniences anyone in even a minor way, we should outright blanket ban it. And that is what the people pushing for punitive bans are saying.
Find solutions. Penalize bad actors. Don't practice group punishment. Screen guests with more and better data. Don't just ban the "other"
Similarly, the Indy 500 is exactly like a parking lot, they're both pieces of pavement with cars on them, only difference is the variation in speed.
In real life your examples are not the same. One is a residential building and one is a hotel. Those things are different.
Short term rentals are residential use from a zoning perspective. A vacation rental is not the same thing as a hotel. There are key differences. A hotel has a front desk and is open 24 hours a day. A vacation rental does not.
Its a home rental of a shorter duration.
[1] https://www.usmayors.org/resolutions/80th_conference/cdh08.a...