You're simply demonstrating NIMBYism. You get to stay in one of the most geographically desirable locations in the world and in order to pay lower rent you want to prevent others who live in much less geographically desirable places from renting units in your locale so that they can get to enjoy something you get to enjoy year round, for a few days of the year.
I live in a > 100 year old building with bad acoustic insulation with 10 small apartments in it. For some time, the tenant above rented his apartment via AirBnB which was totally annoying and I'm really happy it stopped.
I'm mostly talking about loud noise in the middle of the night, disturbing all the other tenants. Be it coming home drunk at 4am and puking in the stair case, having lots of parties, shouting, door slamming, etc.
Also, from what I've seen, most opposition to Airbnb is motivated by its alleged effect on rental rates for long-term tenants, which is the least justifiable reason to oppose it in my opinion.
The equivalent of your statement is saying that a licensed doctor and a stranger who claims to know what he's doing should both be able to perform surgery on you - because we wouldn't want to discriminate.
Legal discrimination based on inborn traits, like race, gender or place of birth, is probably worse, because the targeted group can't change those traits, but both are bad because they discriminate against people based on generalisations about the group they belong to rather than a harmful action they engage in.
>The equivalent of your statement is saying that a licensed doctor and a stranger who claims to know what he's doing should both be able to perform surgery on you - because we wouldn't want to discriminate.
Well, first of all, it shouldn't be illegal for an unlicensed person to perform surgery. It's none of anyone else's business what two consenting adults agree to do together. But that aside, it's not the equivalent at all. The licensed doctor has qualifications that attest their medical knowledge.
Source: tried to rent an apartment in college.
Possibly there are arguments that this is a right under certain circumstances (HOA, co-op, etc. agreements) but it's not obvious that low turnover among neighbors is a right in general.
Raising height limits and rezoning tourist areas for mixed-use is a better approach anyway - as a tourist, I use AirBNB because I can't afford the high priced hotels in popular NYC areas. I would vastly prefer staying in a proper hotel in the city, but it's too expensive (presumably because of limited supply)... the only happy person is the land lord who gets hotel revenue without hotel regulations.
I signed a 12 month rental agreement for an apartment in Reykjavik in 2015. About a month after I moved in, the apartment above me was sold to an ABnBer, and for the rest of the year I had a rotating troop of loud holidayers cycling through. I took to sleeping with earplugs every night, and still often was kept up until 1 or 2 on a weeknight. Needless to say, I moved the second the contract expired.
You can't persuade AirBnB users to give a shit about the noise they are causing, because they're going to be gone in 2 weeks. They don't care if the rest of the apartment hates them. It was toxic behavior that lowered the value of all the other apartments, and it harmed my quality of life quite severely.
But here's the important bit. This problem is not like someone buying a house near an airport and then complaining about the noise. Apartments become AirBnB rentals very suddenly, with no warning. There's nothing you can do to plan or defend against it, and it can happen to anyone. It's life ruining stuff, it harms your sleep, it harms your property investments, it increases your building maintenance costs and it increases your rental costs[1], and it happens randomly out of the blue.
It's an approach used by a lot of companies that I've started to think of as "societal strip mining". AirBnB is making it's money by offloading costs of business that it should rightfully pay itself to random other people around it, and pocketing the difference.
A newly created hotel in the middle of an otherwise quiet suburb would be required to soundproof it's premises and build parking under the site for it's customers. AirBnB apartments ignore soundproofing and create a system that encourages their customers to fight the locals for street parking (AirBnB customers usually win, because they're not on a 9-5 work schedule). It's no different to Uber saying "local regulations are not our problem, so we're not going to pay for cameras in Uber vehicles, and we're not going to safety check the vehicles every 3 months either. Whether our drivers do these things or not is between them and the government". BAM, fleet maintenance costs drop to zero, giving them a competitive edge against local taxi companies. Every now and again someone gets brutally raped or a car goes off a bridge as a result of pressuring their drivers to bypass regulations, but Uber isn't the one that has to pay.
I'm not impressed by this NIMBYism argument. AirBnB is taking the piss. They've had every opportunity to be a responsible business and work to support the tourism boom in Iceland in a positive manner, and instead they've made the lives of locals a lot harder and more expensive than it need be in the name of a quick buck. I for one will embrace with open arms any legislation which will shut them out of my city.
[1] 44% of Reykjaviks rental market is now listen on AirBnB, up from 23.5% 12 months ago, the average cost of rent has increase ~$1000USD per month in two years.
I too agree that there are businesses out there that offload costs onto society. Some people use these services responsibly, enjoy a cost-savings, and will usually ardently defend the merits of the company that provides it.
Some number of other people do not use the service responsibly, and through their behavior, can cause serious harm, annoyance, and time/financial costs to random members of society.
Where Airbnb differs from casinos, breweries, tobacco companies, oxycotton manufacturers, payday loan brokers, fireworks manufacturers, bomb manufacturers...
is that Airbnb is a tech company, I guess.
I disagree. IMO it's different simply because it's new and growing extremely large. All your other examples are old-school things that expand slowly, locally, and that we have plenty of experience in handling. They're also all regulated, and actually follow those regulations.
I think "societal strip-mining" is a very apt description of Uber and AirBnB.
I think their technology has given them the ability to coordinate laborers with buyers like never before.
It isn't centralized like a casino or brothel, because the workers are geographically dispersed and don't have to show up to a physical building/boss for instructions.
It is more effective than craigslist or a newspaper, because their technology has evolved and is trusted enough to deliver quality service in real-time.
There is a big war on how to regulate/clamp down on this (depends on your view), but it is likely their technology that made the difference compared to other business models.
this doesn't give them a free pass, it just explains why/how it happened maybe ^.^
> It's an approach used by a lot of companies that I've started to think of as "societal strip mining". AirBnB is making it's money by offloading costs of business that it should rightfully pay itself to random other people around it, and pocketing the difference.
How can anyone disagree with that? That paragraph is pretty obviously true _regardless_ of whether you like or dislike Airbnb. They are quite obviously taking advantage of the economic conditions (and lack of enforcement of many laws) and engaging in a form of indirect arbitrage of the housing stock. It makes perfect business sense and you may even think it's good, but doesn't make the quoted paragraph and less true.
I'm not sure exactly where I stand with this in the big picture, but quotes like "You're simply demonstrating NIMBYism." are as overly simplistic. You could just as easily say the users of Airbnb are "simply demonstrating selfishness" in their taking advantage of places _not_ meant to be hotels.
My vacation rentals have rules, especially about noise. If you break the rules I can literally force you to leave right then, as in, collect your stuff and go right now. You have no recourse. The police will help me toss you if you don't go willingly.
If I rented to you long term, I don't have that luxury. I'd have to evict you over months of court precedings and you'd have plenty of time to vindictively trash my property. In fact, this is one of the main reasons I don't do long term rentals.
There is no deterrent whatsoever for Airbnb guests, who have no stake in the lease or the local market.
Clearly some people do rent to new profiles. There are fools everywhere, but they won't be fools for long. It will only take a few bad experiences, and then they'll learn.
From a single host's point of view, you have 0% chance of renting with me or the hosts like me.
So we're looking at this from different views. I get that people with new profiles CAN find a place, even a nice place. Please get that they won't find it with cautious hosts that are careful about their visitors.
On one hand everyone is pissed that people are buying properties just to rent on airbnb (and home away, flipkey, vbro, etc...) and on the other hand we need to protect these same people from themselves?
You can't protect the predator and its prey.
If you want fewer people buying up properties for short term rentals you should want the weaker ones to have bad experiences and tell all their friends.
That depends __entirely__ on where you live. In Iceland, your renting a building is registered with your kennitala (national identification number). Get evicted or damage the property, and all the real estate managers in the country know.
The rate of loud and obnoxious long term renters is lower, due to the risk of people going to your landlord and forcing your eviction.
This can only be done if your behavior is chronic and long standing as an individual. There is no local law I am aware of allowing action against a cycle of short term tenants.
>My vacation rentals have rules, especially about noise. If you break the rules I can literally force you to leave right then, as in, collect your stuff and go right now.
A landlord who does this will get negative reviews, which will directly lower their income. AirBnB landlords are literally paid to ignore complaints.
I agree that the rate is higher, but not the reason. Most bad renters know it's almost impossible to get evicted from a long term rental. You must not know anyone who is a long term landlord, because you throw around the word eviction like it's nothing. It's a long and expensive process at the end of which you'll most likely have extensive property damage on top of lost rent.
Frankly, you're overestimating the importance of a negative review. If we ever had to kick someone out it would be for a good reason. If you had a party at the house, that would be against our contract and you'd get tossed. I'd then get a bad review, mixed in with all my other 5 star reviews. To that one review I would simply respond "Visitor threw a party with 20 people which was in violation of our contract. This is not a party house and we're upfront about that. Anyone who thinks they can rent my property under false pretenses should heed this review and not rent from me."
Now I'm better off on airbnb. My average review is still high and now prospective visitors know I won't put up with shit.
Noise complaints from other tenants often fall on deaf ears.
Any one star reviews can be explained away easily. I've never had to do it as a host, but I've stayed at places with some one star reviews where the host provided a reasonable explanation in response.
The neighboring town zoned an area for short term rentals, forced registration with the city, and added some fees. It turned all of the legit short term rental owners effectively into enforcement of rentals outside the zone so they can control supply. It worked out pretty well and seemed to be a good balance of control and free market.
Part of the problem is that landlords are able to charge so much more for AirBnB here that none of the landlords really want to rule out the possibility of getting in on the gravy themselves, hence the stat about half the rental market being on Airbnb.
Most buildings have an owners association of some kind, but it doesn't have the power that HOA's seem to have according to the Internet. As far as I know (and I'm not very knowledgeable on this), if there was any kind of major disagreement, such as some owners trying to stop others from doing short term rentals, ultimately it would have to end up in court to force someones hand.
Reducing something to a term doesn't negate it. There are many things which, if they start happening in your back yard, you would have valid reasons to object to and work against. Yet you could call all of them NIMBYism. So what? That's not shorthand for wrong.
The neighbourhood around you turning into a transient state where your neighbours change on a daily basis? To me that's a valid cause for concern. To others, young professionals renting in a busy city and moving every 6-12 months? Probably not so much.
Both positions are valid and deserving of consideration.
Airbnb is a hack that exists because the current market is completely unsustainable.
Still, my condo has a no AirB&B clause. I would not have bought it if it allowed neighbors in the building to AirB&B.
Not 100% that clause is still enforceable, but I sold it a few years ago. I would sell ASAP though if I caught wind a neighbor was going to rent their unit. A quiet home is worth a lot to me.