Hacker News Reader

Comment by bcheung | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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.

“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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com