Or "Airbnb fails to properly warn travellers they're booking stays that potentially will have to be cancelled later".
Or "Airbnb fails to properly warn travellers they're booking stays that potentially will have to be cancelled later".
Your first quote is wrong according to the article
(If it turns out it was the city's fault that Airbnb erroneously thought the registration was invalid, that'd clearly be an implementation failure, I agree, but still leaves open the question why Airbnb only reacted so late)
As opposed to a rigid system of "designated uses" for private properties that prevents economic transactions depending on how much they inconvenience upper class and politically connected residents and competing hospitality interests.
Edit to add:
And by regulating local externalities at the local building level rather than the city level, you are more likely to have better regulations in regards to residents and owners wishes.
It's sad to get to this point but nobody was going to do anything and I was no way willing to deal with that situation. One tourist even pissed in the elevator.
The situation was just not tolerable.
One star - Neighbors will beat you with a baseball bat if you have a late night party.
It's almost funny that the city is engaging in rent-seeking behavior against renters. In this move San Francisco makes it clear that they believe they own your property and you merely occupy it on their whim.
In this move, San Franciso makes it clear that you can't change the use of a property without permission.
Living in a city is a big trade-off. More jobs, less liberty.
Some people rent out a spare room now and again for extra cash, and some people have multiple properties that are occupied exclusively by Airbnb renters, essentially running an unlicensed hotel.
The latter can be extremely obnoxious if its your upstairs neighbor, not to mention the effects that being discovered by Airbnb real estate investors can have on a town or neighborhood.