Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcheung | Hacker News Reader

What is the motivation for this law? Why is SF regulating the length of stay or rentors at all? Seems like a gross violation of freedom and property rights. Zoning I can understand but duration? This seems like a bad law.

View on HN

Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes? You have different rights as a renter and as a consumer of hotel services.

If you claim to be regulated by one (say as a landlord who has several empty units intended for lease) but are operating as the other (essentially an off-books hotel) that is an attempt to manipulate regulators and avoid responsibilities, tax burdens, etc that one or the other has.

There are already laws and rights for tenants that are based on how long they have stayed at a place, whether they have received mail there, pay for utilities there, etc. Generally speaking, the more you are a full time tenant for a longer duration the more rights you have.

People don't like living next to hotels. This has never really been a problem because until recently the barrier to operating an apartment as a hotel was very high, so no regulation arose to regulate it. All current movements for AirBnB licensing are doing is regulating these as if they are hotels.

> Short term stays like hotels and long term stays like renting should be regulated differently, yes?

It's clear that a lot of people take this for granted, but I don't. I don't see why the rights of one group ought to be different or more important than the rights of another group.

As a pedestrian, you have the right to transport yourself using the sidewalk; as an automobile driver, you don't.

Hotel owners do not want competition. For a politician, it is easier to extract surplus from a limited number of hotel owners than from a large number of people renting their individual units. So, under the appropriate excuse, a law preventing competition is passed.

The foundations of all this were established in the early 20th century in cases such as Nebbia v New York[1], Munn v Illinois[2] etc.

For the record, I think these decisions, and the various laws passed by cities in an effort to protect hotel owners and taxi medallion owners and cable franchise owners etc are both horrible law and horrible economics.

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/291/502

[2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/94/113/

This is a pretty short-sighted view, in my opinion.

Regulation also means working fire alarms, access for disabled persons, and a whole lot of other things that are far from guaranteed with unscrupulous building owners in a booming housing market.

The right solution is in the middle somewhere, but it's insufficient to simply call this a case of regulatory oversight.

I think you answered to the wrong comment. He never said all regulations were wrong, he said the monopolistic regulation around hotel and taxi are just made to protect hotel and taxi owners. He isn't talking about any other regulation from what I understands.

This his incredible inaccurate.

Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented. The fact that these interests align with the hotel industry is irrelevant.

Most of the profit AirBnb generates is from huge, commercial interests renting out 10+ rooms and entire houses. That strains supply and disrupts neighborhoods.

> Most opposition to the mini-hotel industry (AirBnb) is community oriented.

See, e.g., "Hotel Money Is Funding Anti-Airbnb Sting Operations"[1].

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/hotel-mon...

Regulating where hotels and other business may be located is a pretty standard thing to regulate. If you turn an apartment block into a factory or hotel without a permit, you are going to have a bad time in pretty much any city.

Isn't zoning one of the contributing factors to the housing crisis?

The problem AFAIK with airbnb is that it takes supply from the residential side, and people using the properties for living in the area should be prioritized over visitors who should book hotels.

Why should they be prioritized? That seems rather subjective and dependent on who you are. An argument could be made that it takes supply from the short term side and artificially drives up the cost of hotels. Why not let supply / demand decide?

Because people's day to day ability to live in shelter is more important than tourists.

is more important to whom? do you mean that tourists are non-people?

Tourism for the tourist is a luxury, shelter for the resident is a necessity. If you’ve been homeless you would probably agree not having a home is quite a bit worse than having to pay more for a hotel when on holiday.

“Letting supply and demand decide” means deciding to give the housing to whoever will pay the most: which group do you think will pay more, the entire world of tourists who want to visit SF on vacation or people who live here?

Which of these groups do you think it is more important to serve?

Been to Venice? But for a sliver of the northern side, I got the impression nobody lived there but tourists.

I think it varies.

There are a large class of landlords that will favor longer term tenants because it is lower risk / less hassle.

There are also many cases where renting long term is more profitable as well if the home can't be booked consistently. There has always been a "volume discount" incentive for business owners.

I would say there is economic incentive for both interests.

I don't claim to have the right to assert my opinion on other renters and landlords. I don't think others should either. Who I think is more important is none of my business. That's between the renter and the landlord IMO.

Markets, based on supply and demand, have a natural tendency to find balance between the interests of multiple parties.

> Which of these groups do you think it is more important

I dunno, let the market decide? From your question, it seems like you claim to have a self-evident answer, why?

Why is the market any better? Our reasoning is based on the needs of human life, not who has more money.

Communists in Soviet Russia thought this, too. How do you know your reasoning is sound?

Because we’re optimizing for the least human suffering.

Communists said that, too.

And what's being done here is the same as communism? And communism has no potential benefits? Why don't you argue based on concrete facts instead of false equivalencies?

Because tourists tend to impose negative externalities upon the city (like getting drunk and throwing up in the streets), and long-term residents tend to impose positive externalities (like planting flowerboxes at their windows).

Also because residents pay for public services via taxes, and tourists staying in illegal Airbnbs don't even pay hotel taxes.

Also because residents, not tourists, vote.

I think the government has a legitimate role in maintaining order in the streets. I don't think the government has any legitimate role in influencing the number of flowerboxes in windows.

>Because tourists tend to impose negative externalities upon the city

Seriously? Cities love tourists, they contribute a lot of $$$ to the economy

A lot? Depends on the city.

How is renting it out with Airbnb different from an owner just holding onto the property and not living in it?

If anything, cities should encourage property owners to rent out spare rooms or empty apartments to tourists to bring in that spending money.

> How is renting it out with Airbnb different from an owner just holding onto the property and not living in it?

How do you think it's different?

Because by banning AirBnB short rentals, the rooms and entire properties will then be more likely used to house permanent residents. Owners will be financially incentivized to provide it for the residential rental market, or to sell it, versus not doing anything with it and paying the property taxes.

This is what SF does: create a ton of laws or regulations so that it’s onerous to not break one, then selectively enforce them when it’s palatable to. Try street parking in SF; it’s like an SAT problem trying to figure out if you’re doing it legally. Arbitrary justice is not good.

What are you talking about? The article is clear in that this was a flagrant violation, reiterated multiple times.

I have no sympathy for these landlords.

The distinction between hotels and residences is pretty standard across the world and is hardly arbitrary.

I too have accidentally run an illegal hotel by renting out dozens of units hundreds of times, who hasn’t? Wait...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com