I understand why rent seeking locals would favor this. But how is this any different from, e.g., Austin cabbies ripping off the tourists and getting Uber banned?
Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change.
Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change.
At one time people purchased homes assuming they weren't going to live next to negroes. Did they also have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change? If not, why not?
I.e., it's a rationalization, not a reason.
Typing these words doesn't remove the differences between the situations. "Desiring to rent out my apt to tourists" is not a protected class.
Kasey_junk - if I understood him correctly - was arguing that the law should not be changed because "the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change."
If that argument were valid, then the law about renting to non-whites should not have changed either to create protected classes (which didn't exist at the time the original zoning laws were made).
Edit: I'm less interested in Kasey_junk's argument and moreso in your unwillingness to acknowledge the vast difference between discriminating against protected classes and regulation of commercial activity in private recidences.
I have no strong opinion on the legality of discrimination by race. It offends my moral intuitions, but I cannot construct a solid argument in favor of it that doesn't lead to other crazy conclusions. So I accept my uncertainty here.
Edit: I'm less interested in Kasey_junk's argument and moreso in your unwillingness to acknowledge the vast difference between discriminating against protected classes and regulation of commercial activity in private recidences.
I acknowledge the vast difference in feelings that these situations inspire. But I cannot come up with a good principled argument to justify the existence of protected classes, or to distinguish between these cases in some other way.
I argue that this line of reasoning is invalid - if it were valid, then white homeowners had some reasonable expectation to have a say on if segregation was going to change. I don't believe they did.
Let me return the favor. To paraphrase yummyfajitas everyone should be allowed to sublease their apartment in anyway they see fit. If we ban iron smelting in residential buildings what is next? I'll tell you what, slave labor camps.
Of course the world does not work that way. The extreme arguments do not define what is and is not valid, and no one actually believes they do after their introduction to rhetoric in the 8th grade. It is perfectly valid to hold the opinion that residents of a neighborhood should be able to prevent toxic waste from being dumped in adjacent yards and to hold that they shouldn't be allowed to ban people from living near them due to race.
Dumping toxic waste does directly interfere, but AirBnBing, long term leasing or Grindring to a non-white person does not.
Feel free to follow this principle and see if you can derive any conclusions from it that I don't support. If so, I'll recognize that my argument is flawed and retract it.
What's your core principle that I can follow as far as it leads?
Most usage restrictions are not about limiting how you use your property, they are about how common property is used. It is just much more efficient and workable to encourage grouped rules based on usage expectations than any other option we've come up with.
In the AirBnB case there are all manner of common property issues that may come up. An obvious one off the top of my head is security key accessibility. In hotels it is very common to allow access to security keys to many many people, therefore hotels have the infrastructure to support removing/changing access frequently. Lots of multi-dwelling buildings do not have that infrastructure and do not need it for most usages that would be considered residential.
Another issue, that is literally impacting me right now, is expected use of pest control services and waste disposal. In my building someone is running a catering business out of his kitchen, against the rules of the association, the lease he has agreed to, and the laws of our city. But he is in his property so what is the issue? The higher usage levels lead to higher pest levels, the units nearest to him are dealing with unprecedented problems and we as the association are having to foot the bill for increased pest control services, and for more garbage pick up as he generates an outsized amount of waste.
Why aren't these individual property issues? Because pests don't observe property boundaries and the trash collection is common. Why don't we charge extra for these things to the individual unit? Because the law states that we can't for unmetered services (for private property rights preserving reasons) and it is infeasible to make trash individually serviced.
The principle is fairly easy to understand, when you live in a community there is a give and take between individual rights and responsibilities to the community. A robust system of regulations and the rule of law help to enforce those lines and the system needs to be actively shaped, monitored and embraced for it to work, with special emphasis placed on making sure the rights of the individual are impacted in as fair and moral ways as we can.
When did this become a valid reason to regulate an activity? Can I use this as a reason to regulate other private activities as well? If not, why not?
For many living next to a constant stream of strangers is undesirable.
Typically we consider those desires morally invalid and not something to be supported. Why is "short term" a morally valid way to characterize the "wrong type of people"?
Are you unable to see the difference and how that might affect you?
I don't see any difference that matters, nor do I see the underlying moral principle that allows me to distinguish between one and the other. The principle you've stated clearly isn't it, unless you also favor regulating Grindr.
(I'm deliberately choosing Grindr here in order to make my example conflict with left wing mood affiliation.)
Are you willing to admit that this may change the local community dynamics in a negative way for long term residents?
I use Airbnb. I think it's great (from my perspective). However, I understand why some may want to limit it.
I guess I'm just the kind of person who believes that two consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their own bedroom.
When you operate on the assumption that people aren't affected by AirBnB rentals in their buildings this is an easy argument. But sometimes people are affected.
In many US cities renting out a home is a violation of local zoning code. The government places a large number of restrictions on what you can do on 'your land.'
Simplicio (historical): "In the US the answer is clearly 'yes you can regulate his private business'. In many US cities renting out a home to a negro is a violation of the local zoning code."
Do you see the fallacy of this argument? I'm arguing "should", not "is".
All the reasons cited in this thread seem pretty bad. I say they are bad because when you apply the same reasons to regulating anything other than AirBnB, suddenly they don't seem like good reasons at all.
The Supreme Court says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review
In order to justify the New Deal the Court lowered its standard for state infringement of liberty to: "You just need any reason for this law, it doesn't have to be a good one"
I do. If you go read the historical justification for zoning law in the US (by the way zoning and land use laws were originally intended to keep negroes out rich neighborhoods) they rest on the idea that as long as the government can come up with a "rational basis" that the law would "improve the public welfare" than zoning laws are a legitimate exercise in state police power. This was around the 1920's.
Later you have a concern for civil rights but the courts pretty much ignored the issue of how zoning might impact poor minorities.
There's been some lefty rumbling about maybe modifying the zoning code so that poor minorities can still afford to live in rich areas. Of course the remedies proposed are better zoning laws, not no zoning laws.
My concern is that these land use laws take away yield from capital (ie rent from landowners). The US economy has not been growing very fast lately - I don't think the US can any longer afford the costs of an extensive regulatory state. Locking away the returns to land in exchange for centrally planning all the land uses might make things feel "nice" in the short run but in the long run could impoverish the country.
It's also easy to imagine that the land owner's rent gains are higher than the "externalities" endured by the neighbors. I'm skeptical that the government can find a good tradeoff here.
As long as you're paying for the externalities (which in most cases of AirBnb rentals, you aren't) then sure.
You can pay for services by charging property taxes. since the value of land will go up (thanks to it being used for it's most productive use) and lower income people getting pushed out (such people are more likely to be a net drain on resources), you'll actually have more money to pay for services.
In the US I'm sure you can find people who _HATE_ when their neighbors enjoy the company of guests that they found on Grindr.
Does that mean we should shut down Grindr (or prevent Grindr from giving 1 person more than 1 match/month) or pass laws against these activities?