One of the things I like about the sharing economy (Uber, Airbnb, etc) is that we're slowly being reminded that it's okay to trust our neighbors, despite the constant attempts by the media to spread fear.
Even if this were a viable solution, it does nothing for the lost sleep during the months (or in may case, full year) it takes to establish these rules and get them consistently enforced.
Also, it's not a viable solution. There are a couple huge problems.
First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees.
Second, with notable exceptions, HOAs/land lords dislike playing mediator/enforcer (and for good reason -- see below). So rules are hard to make and harder to enforce.
Third, there's a real cost imposed on any community that tries to legislate "be a normal neighbor". If you want an enumeration of the potential downsides of this approach, talk to anyone who has had a bad experience with an over-zealous HOA.
You could try to make and enforce a set of rules in a way that solves the problem but doesn't drive normal neighbors insane with pedantic/vindictive rule-violation-reporting. But it turns out that's a rather hard set of rules to come up with/fairly enforce. It's just much easier and, frankly, more effective, to ban airbnb et al.
I'm not opposed to apartment sharing on principle, and in fact my personal political philosophy should bias me toward defending the practice. But my actual experience makes me wary of buildings/neighborhoods that allow airbnb. If airbnb doesn't figure out a solution to this problem, they're going to face increasing resistance.
I don't understand that argument. It might make months to establish a ban or effective enforcement of temporary tenants as well. Obviously that sucks, but I'm just trying to think about which rule would be more effective and reasonable.
> First, evicting owners is no small thing. In fact, neither is evicting renters. In fact, neither is fining owners/renters for sums of money that would actually cause a change in behavior. These are all very expensive options of last resort that are likely to end in lawyer fees.
Again, I don't understand. Those are the exact same options we have to disincentivize owners/renters taking in temporary tenants. What alternative enforcement mechanism are you suggesting?
It seems like you're focusing on the difficulties in enforcing my suggestion without recognizing that literally the exact same difficulties exist in enforcing your suggestion.
All it takes is one person who does.
> One of the things I like about the sharing economy (Uber, Airbnb, etc) is that we're slowly being reminded that it's okay to trust our neighbors
Except it's not neighbors but complete strangers you're asked to trust, and that trust is sometime misplaced. There's absolutely no difference in that between the "sharing economy" (which has little to do with sharing) and just plain economy.
And keep in mind that it's not in fact random strangers you interact with, there and in many other situations - an activity can be more dangerous than the random chance of meeting a dangerous criminal would indicate, when it attracts such criminals more than it attracts other people, possibly because it makes it easier for them to find victims or evade detection.
None of which matters for Halloween candy, since it's provided by actual neighbors and so common that it really is basically random.
> Except it's not neighbors but complete strangers you're asked to trust, and that trust is sometime misplaced.
I'm guessing you've never lived in a place where the common means of transportation is to just stand by the street, look for the next car coming by with empty seats, and signal/ask how much it is to your destination?
What kind of a strawman is that? Where did I ever suggest you should just "accept assault by taxi drivers"? Go report them so that we can weed them out. Nobody suggested we do nothing.
1000 people gaining a little bit quickly outweighs 1 person losing a lot (at least from a purely utilitarian perspective)
In my experience that assumption is usually false. There are usually ways where you can actually reduce the amount of danger and the number of people exposed to it and increase the number of people getting a more efficient service at the same time.
Look for these outward movements of the efficient frontier. The opportunity is almost always there. When we're really at the efficient frontier of what is possible and have no choice but to make tradeoffs let's say so loudly because something has gone very, very right to get to that point.
That's good, and it plays nicely to your point that the status quo isn't always at the right balance point, but the hypocrisy is off-putting.
The airline industry provides an extreme example. They go years at a time with no fatalities, while still providing almost ludicrously cheap service.